Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 1 of 79 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

)

QUINTON M. THOMAS; ROELIF EARL )

CARTER; BRADLEY JILES; ANGELA )

DAVIS; MEREDITH WALKER;

)

BRITTANY ELLIS; DONYA PIERCE; )

RONALD TUCKER; KEILEE FANT; )

MAWOUSSIME ADOBOE, SHILITA )

THOMAS, JAMES REDMOND III,

)

VERONICA MURPHY,

)

et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CITY OF ST. ANN;

)

CITY OF EDMUNDSON;

)

CITY OF NORMANDY;

)

CITY OF COOL VALLEY;

)

CITY OF VELDA CITY;

)

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS;

)

CITY OF PAGEDALE;

)

CITY OF CALVERTON PARK;

)

CITY OF ST. JOHN;

)

CITY OF BEL-RIDGE;

)

CITY OF WELLSTON

)

CITY OF VELDA VILLAGE HILLS; and )

CITY OF BELLEFONTAINE

)

NEIGHBORS,

)

)

Defendants.

)

___________________________________ )

Case No. 4:16-cv-1302
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (Jury Trial Demanded)

INTRODUCTION

1. The Defendant Municipalities, through their police departments, municipal court

systems, city prosecuting attorneys’ offices, and jails, have terrorized the named Plaintiffs and

many thousands of others through a deliberate and coordinated conspiracy established and

implemented to fill the Municipalities’ coffers by extorting money from thousands of poor,

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 2 of 79 PageID #: 2
disproportionately African-American people in the St. Louis region, creating a modern-day police state and debtors’ prison scheme that has no place in American society.
2. The scheme reflects an extraordinary abuse of governmental authority, starting with the over-policing of low income communities of color and the issuance of excessive citations for traffic and other minor municipal code violations, followed by arbitrary fines, penalties, surcharges, and interest charges that pile up like debts to a loan-shark, arrest warrants auto-generated without good cause or even a semblance of due process, and imprisonment— imposed without assistance of counsel—in squalid debtors’ prisons. The Defendants’ unconstitutional revenue-generation scheme disproportionately targets African-American residents, placing jobs at risk, leaving children without supervision, and debasing fundamental human rights, for as long as it takes to strong-arm payment from Plaintiffs and others.
3. Plaintiffs are a group of similarly situated individuals who are victims of the Defendants’ predatory scheme. Each of these human beings was locked in a cage by or on behalf of one or more of the 13 municipalities named as Defendants in this lawsuit (the “Defendant Municipalities”) solely because he or she was unable to afford a cash payment. And each was left to languish in filthy, often overcrowded jail cells because he or she could not afford to pay the jacked-up fines, penalties, and other charges that Defendants assessed. Defendants did not inquire about, much less accommodate, the hardships their extortionate demands placed on Plaintiffs and their families. Nor did Defendants offer to provide Plaintiffs with counsel who could advise them of their rights or otherwise protect them from Defendants’ predatory scheme.1
1 The architecture of this illegal scheme has been in place for many years. See, e.g., T.E. Lauer, Prolegomenon to Municipal Court Reform in Missouri, 31 Mo. L. Rev. 69, 88 (1966) (“[I]t seems that many citizens of the state are being confined needlessly in our city jails . . . .”); id. at 85 (“[I]t is disgraceful that we do not appoint counsel in our municipal courts to represent indigent persons accused of ordinance violations.”); id. at 90 (“It is clear that many
2 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 3 of 79 PageID #: 3
4. Defendants’ officials and employees—through their conduct, decisions, training, rules, policies, practices, and procedures—constructed and implemented this unified, conspiratorial scheme for the overriding purpose of raising municipal revenue (and not for any legitimate law enforcement purpose). In 2015 alone, the Defendant Municipalities issued an average of 1.7 arrest warrants per household and one (1) arrest warrant for every adult, mostly for allegedly unpaid debt in connection with tickets supposedly involving traffic violations and other petty offenses.2
5. Defendants gained the coercive leverage to effectuate their scheme by resurrecting a modern analogue of debtors’ prisons—an institution this country rejected as inhumane more than a century ago. That leverage has made Defendants’ scheme increasingly profitable, generating millions of dollars of revenue over the past several years. Defendants’ law enforcement and municipal court practices focus on maximizing revenue, rather than promoting public safety, administering justice, or providing the bare rudiments of due process. Defendants are forcing the poorest and most vulnerable citizens to finance a municipal system that is a tool of injustice and oppression.
6. As a result, this scheme has targeted and persecuted people who live in or travel through Defendants’ municipal borders, trapping them for years in a cycle of escalating fees, intractable debt, and imprisonment. In particular, Defendants’ scheme has preyed on the most vulnerable, those living in or near poverty, who are least able to bear, or to avoid, the extortionate costs Defendants have imposed.
municipalities have at times conceived of their municipal courts in terms of their revenue-raising ability. . . .”). 2 OFFICE OF STATE COURTS ADMIN., MO. JUDICIAL REPORT SUPP.: FISCAL YEAR 2015, Table 95, http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=96438; U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, PROFILING OF GENERAL POPULATION AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS 2010, http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
3 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 4 of 79 PageID #: 4
7. Thousands of people in the Plaintiffs’ position must divert funds from their disability checks, or sacrifice meager earnings their families desperately need for food, diapers, clothing, rent, and utilities, to pay spiraling court fines, fees, costs, and surcharges. Whether or not valid, a citation for a minor offense—a broken tail light, a lane change without signaling— often generates crippling debts for people like Plaintiffs, resulting in jail time when they cannot afford to pay, deepening their already desperate poverty.
8. The summary imprisonment Defendants impose on people who appear in the Defendants’ municipal courts but who cannot afford to pay the sums of money demanded frightens many away from the courthouse, allowing Defendants to jack up the fines even further and issue arrest warrants⎯intended to coerce payment⎯for “Failure to Pay” and “Failure to Appear.” Month after month, year after year, the cycle repeats itself, ensnaring Plaintiffs and those like them in a system from which it is nearly impossible to extricate themselves.
9. Defendants have abused the legal system to bestow a patina of legitimacy on what is, in reality, extortion. If private parties had created and implemented this scheme, enforced it by threatening and imposing indefinite incarceration, and milked poor families of millions of dollars, the law would punish them as extortionists and racketeers, and the community would take steps to prevent them from exploiting the most vulnerable of its members. These predatory practices are no more legitimate—and indeed are more outrageous—when state and local government actors perpetrate them under color of law.
10. The treatment of the named Plaintiffs reveals a coordinated, systemic effort by Defendants through both police and municipal court practices, to deprive some of the area’s poorest residents of their rights under the United States Constitution. For years, Defendants have engaged in the same conduct, as a matter of policy and practice, against Plaintiffs and thousands
4 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 5 of 79 PageID #: 5
of other impoverished citizens. These citizens’ fundamental constitutional right to liberty, however, does not depend on their income. Defendants have created or revived de facto debtors’ prisons, using them as a tool to cow poor people into financing municipal government. Such flagrant abuse is not consistent with the values this country holds dear, with the rule of law, or with the constitutional guarantee of due process.
11. Importantly, to enable and perpetuate this unconstitutional scheme, Defendant City of St. Ann acts as a veritable warehouse in which the Defendant Municipalities can deposit excess arrestees.
12. On their own, the other 12 Defendant Municipalities each lack the capacity to hold more than a few people at a given time, so they contract or otherwise conspire with St. Ann to arrest a significantly greater number of people for alleged municipal ordinance violations and ship them to St. Ann Jail, where arrestees languish until the Defendant Municipalities can extract enough money from the individuals or their families to satisfy the Municipalities’ demands. Without the availability of St. Ann’s recently-expanded jail, which “sleeps 42, not including a pen for short-timers and a juvenile area,”3 the Defendant Municipalities would not be able to incarcerate, or threaten to incarcerate, human beings too poor to pay their debts, and the Defendants’ unlawful scheme would fall apart.
13. Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, and on behalf of those similarly situated, bring this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs seek in this civil action the vindication of their fundamental rights, compensation for the abuse that Defendants have rained
3 Bogan, Jesse, A Sense of Change in St. Ann, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH (Aug. 5, 2012), http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/a-sense-of-change-in-st-ann/article_c2dd4c0b-45fc552f-8df9-8ec5db29d7cb.html.
5 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 6 of 79 PageID #: 6
down on them, injunctive relief assuring that Defendants will not violate their rights again, and a declaration that the Defendants’ conduct is unlawful.4
NATURE OF THE ACTION 14. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendants jail people who cannot afford to pay money they supposedly owe Defendants for traffic tickets and other minor alleged municipal code violations. Defendants jail people for nonpayment without inquiring whether they can pay, without considering alternatives to imprisonment as required by federal and Missouri law, and without setting bail and/or bond based on the person’s individual circumstances. 15. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendants jail indigent people for these alleged debts without informing them of their right to counsel and without providing counsel for those who cannot afford it. 16. Pursuant to common practice, Defendants arbitrarily and incrementally set and reset the amount of money they require indigent people to pay for release throughout their indefinite detention, sometimes eventually releasing the person if Defendants determine they cannot extort money from him or her. 17. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendants incarcerate individuals indefinitely, unless and until the person, or the person’s family or friends, can pay sufficient money to satisfy Defendants. The conditions of incarceration are so miserable as to intensify the coercive effect. 18. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendants issue and enforce invalid arrest warrants, threaten alleged debtors with jail if they do not bring cash to court, hold alleged debtors in jail for a week or more without any judicial appearance, and, without due process, set and
4 The Plaintiffs make the allegations in this Complaint based on personal knowledge as to matters in which they have had personal involvement, and on information and belief as to all other matters.
6 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 7 of 79 PageID #: 7
modify monetary payments necessary for release with no regard for ability to pay or basic fairness. These tactics frighten people away from appearing in court and then punish them for not appearing.
19. Together these policies and practices constitute and result from a common scheme and coordinated effort between and among the Defendants.
20. These policies and practices are further reflected in, and caused by, the Defendants’ (1) failure to establish consistent procedures, effective training, and meaningful supervision to appropriately guide and monitor the actions of law enforcement officers and other agents of Defendants engaged in law enforcement and municipal court activities; (2) failure to establish reliable systems to detect and appropriately discipline and hold accountable municipal officials for misconduct; and (3) prioritizing revenue generation at the expense of the rights of individuals in the Defendant Municipalities and public safety needs.
21. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
22. This is a civil rights action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq., and the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
23. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. PARTIES
24. Plaintiff Quinton M. Thomas is a 28-year-old man. 25. Plaintiff Roelif Earl Carter is a 63-year-old man. 26. Plaintiff Bradley Jiles is a 24-year-old man. 27. Plaintiff Angela Davis is a 44-year-old woman.
7 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 8 of 79 PageID #: 8
28. Plaintiff Meredith Walker is a 47-year-old woman. 29. Plaintiff Brittany Ellis is a 26-year-old woman. 30. Plaintiff Donya Pierce is a 26-year-old woman. 31. Plaintiff Ronald Tucker is a 51-year-old man. 32. Plaintiff Keilee Fant is a 37-year-old woman. 33. Plaintiff Mawoussime Adoboe is a 33-year-old woman. 34. Plaintiff Shilita Thomas is a 29-year-old woman. 35. Plaintiff James Redmond III is a 65-year-old man. 36. Plaintiff Veronica Murphy is a 31-year-old woman. 37. Defendant City of St. Ann is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of St. Ann operates the St. Ann Jail, the St. Ann Police Department, and the St. Ann Municipal Court. 38. Defendant City of Edmundson is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of Edmundson operates the Edmundson Municipal Court and Edmundson Police Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail. 39. Defendant City of Normandy is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of Normandy operates the Normandy Municipal Court and Normandy Policy Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail. 40. Defendant City of Cool Valley is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of Cool Valley operates the Cool Valley Municipal
8 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 9 of 79 PageID #: 9
Court and Cool Valley Police Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail.
41. Defendant City of Velda City is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. Velda City operates the Velda City Municipal Court and Velda City Police Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail.
42. Defendant City of Pagedale is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of Pagedale operates the Pagedale Municipal Court and Pagedale Police Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail.
43. Defendant City of St. John is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of St. John operates the St. John Municipal Court and St. John Police Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail.
44. Defendant City of Bel-Ridge is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of Bel-Ridge operates the Bel-Ridge Municipal Court and Bel-Ridge Police Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail.
45. Defendant City of Beverly Hills is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of Beverly Hills operates the Beverly Hills Municipal Court and Beverly Hills Police Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail.
9 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 10 of 79 PageID #: 10
46. Defendant City of Bellefontaine Neighbors is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of Bellefontaine Neighbors operates the Bellefontaine Neighbors Municipal Court and Bellefontaine Neighbors Police Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail.
47. Defendant City of Calverton Park is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of Calverton Park operates the Calverton Park Municipal Court and Calverton Park Police Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail.
48. Defendant City of Velda Village Hills is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of Velda Village Hills operates the Velda Village Hills Municipal Court and Velda Village Hills Police Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail.
49. Defendant City of Wellston is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of Wellston operates the Wellston Municipal Court and Wellston Police Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. Factual Background
50. St. Louis County, Missouri is comprised of 90 municipalities and 81 separate municipal courts. These municipalities range in population from under 100 people to over 10,000. The populations of the Municipal Defendants range from 574 in Beverly Hills to 13,020 in St. Ann.
10 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 11 of 79 PageID #: 11
51. In 2013, the municipal courts of St. Louis City and County collected $61,152,087 in fines and fees. During that same time, the combined total of court fines and fees collected by Missouri municipal courts was $132,032,351.63. This means that the municipal courts in the St. Louis region accounted for 46% of all fines and fees collected statewide, despite being home to only 22% of Missourians.5
52. There is little to no oversight of the St. Louis region’s municipal courts. A judicial circuit in Missouri contains on average 8.6 municipal court divisions. The St. Louis County judicial circuit contains 81 municipal court divisions. As a result, the presiding judge of St. Louis County’s circuit courts must oversee nearly ten times the number of municipal courts and municipal court judges as an average presiding judge in Missouri.6
53. According to the most recent available budget information, court fines and fees are the largest single source of revenue for St. Ann, Beverly Hills, Cool Valley, Edmundson, Normandy, and Velda City⎯among several other municipalities. Likewise, Bel-Ridge and St. John receive over twenty percent of their revenue from court fines and fees.
54. As addressed below, there is direct correlation between the revenue that a particular municipality raises through fines and fees and the population of black and impoverished residents living in that municipality. That is, Defendants are funding themselves on the backs of their black and impoverished residents.
55. The brutal efficiency of Defendants’ improper scheme is reflected in the fact that only eight of the eighty-one municipal courts in St. Louis County failed to make a profit, when the cost of operating the municipal court was compared to the revenue collected from court fines
5 See Better Together’s Municipal Courts Study, available at http://www.bettertogetherstl.com/studies/public-safety/municipal-courts-report. 6 Id.
11 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 12 of 79 PageID #: 12
and fees. On average a municipal court in St. Louis County costs $223,149 to operate while
bringing in an average of $711,506 in revenue from fines and fees each year. 56. Several of the Defendant Municipalities are illustrative:7
a. Bel-Ridge gets 24.46% of its general revenue from fines and fees, 83.12% of its population is black and 42.30% are below the poverty line;
b. Beverly Hills gets 26.37% of its general revenue from fines and fees, 92.6% of its population is black and 17.7% are below the poverty line;
c. Cool Valley gets 29.11% of its general revenue from fines and fees, 84.53% of its population is black and 14% are below the poverty line;
d. Edmundson gets 34.86% of its general revenue from fines and fees, 26.38% of its population is black and 19% are below the poverty line;
e. Normandy gets 40.61% of its general revenue from fines and fees, 69.75% of its population is black and 35.4% are below the poverty line;
f. St. Ann gets 37.47% of its general revenue from fines and fees, 22.11% of its population is black and 15.1% are below the poverty line;
g. Velda City gets 21.58% of its general revenue from fines and fees, 95.42% of its population is black and 18.5% are below the poverty line.
57. Based on data reported by police departments to the Missouri Attorney General,
Black residents in the Defendant Municipalities are much more likely to be searched and/or arrested as a result of a vehicle stop.8 For example, in 2015:
7 Sources: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=68844; http://www.bettertogetherstl.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/10/BT-Municipal-Courts-Report-Appendix.pdf. 8 MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL VEHICLE STOPS REPORT, available at https://ago.mo.gov/home/vehicle-stops-report/advanced-search.
12 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 13 of 79 PageID #: 13
a. In St. Ann, out of 8,140 total vehicle stops, 5.87% of stops of white individuals resulted in a search, whereas 15.34% of stops of black individuals resulted in a search. While contraband is more likely to be discovered during stops involving both white drivers and black drivers, black drivers are nearly three times more likely to be arrested than white drivers as a result;
b. In Normandy, out of 4,102 total vehicle stops, 2.44% of stops of white individuals resulted in a search, whereas 6.45% of stops of black individuals resulted in a search. Similarly, 1.15% of stops of white individuals resulted in an arrest, whereas 2.74% of stops of black individuals resulted in an arrest;
c. In Edmundson, out of 1,267 total vehicle stops, 1.59% of stops of white individuals resulted in a search, whereas 5.73% of stops of black individuals resulted in a search. Similarly, 1.43% of stops of white individuals resulted in an arrest, whereas 4.81% of stops of black individuals resulted in an arrest;
d. In Beverly Hills, out of 604 total vehicle stops, approximately the same percentage of stops for white and black individuals resulted in a search. However, only 1.45% of stops of white individuals resulted in an arrest, whereas 8.61% of stops of black individuals resulted in an arrest.
B. Defendants Operate Their Municipal Courts and Jails as Profit Centers
58. Defendants, as a coordinated policy and practice, have improperly used their
municipal courts and jails as a profit center rather than a dispenser of justice.9 Over the past five
years, Defendants have reaped $76,670,220 in revenue from their municipal courts.10 In 2014,
9 Unless otherwise stated in this Complaint, the policies, practices, and procedures of Defendants described herein have been in existence for at least the past five years. 10 OFFICE OF STATE COURTS ADMIN., MO. JUDICIAL REPORT SUPP.: FISCAL YEAR 2011, Table 95, http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=51802; OFFICE OF STATE COURTS ADMIN., MO. JUDICIAL REPORT SUPP.: FISCAL YEAR 2012, Table 94, http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=58805; OFFICE OF STATE COURTS ADMIN., MO. JUDICIAL REPORT SUPP.: FISCAL YEAR 2013, Table 94, http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=68844; OFFICE OF STATE COURTS ADMIN., MO. JUDICIAL REPORT SUPP.: FISCAL YEAR 2014, Table 94, http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=83262;
13 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 14 of 79 PageID #: 14
an astonishing 22.3 percent of Defendants’ total revenue was collected through fines, fees, costs and surcharges.11 In one town, the City of Calverton Park, municipal court revenues accounted for 43.17% of the municipality’s total revenue for 2014.12
59. Well before each fiscal year, Defendants determine the amount of money they need their municipal courts to generate. Defendants depend on the money collected through these municipal courts to help fund their jails, pay municipal court judicial salaries, pay city attorney’s office salaries, and fund other portions of their municipal budgets.
60. Defendants operate their courts and jails to maximize revenues at the expense of justice. Defendants make decisions regarding the operation of the courts and the jails—including the assessment of fines, fees, costs, and surcharges; the availability and conditions of payment plans; the determination of amounts required for release from jail; the issuance and withdrawal of arrest warrants; and the refusal to appoint an attorney for indigent defendants—based on their desire to meet fiscal projections rather than on legitimate penological considerations.
61. In 2015 alone, the Defendant Municipalities issued an average of 1.7 arrest warrants per household and one (1) arrest warrant for every adult,13 mostly for minor municipal ordinance violations, like traffic tickets.
OFFICE OF STATE COURTS ADMIN., MO. JUDICIAL REPORT SUPP.: FISCAL YEAR 2015, Table 94, http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=96437. 11 OFFICE OF STATE COURTS ADMIN., MO. JUDICIAL REPORT SUPP.: FISCAL YEAR 2014, Table 94, http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=83262; General Administration #2, BETTER TOGETHER ST. LOUIS 8-12 (December 2015), http://www.bettertogetherstl.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/12/Better-Together-General-Administration-Report-2-FINAL-.pdf. 12 Id. 13 OFFICE OF STATE COURTS ADMIN., MO. JUDICIAL REPORT SUPP.: FISCAL YEAR 2015, Table 95, http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=96438; U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, PROFILING OF GENERAL POPULATION AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS 2010, http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
14 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 15 of 79 PageID #: 15
62. Over the past five years, Defendants, according to their public records, have collected more than $76,670,220 million dollars from their municipal court fines, fees, costs, and surcharges. The population of these municipalities, including children, is 49,876.14
63. All thirteen (13) of the Defendant Municipalities depend on the St. Ann Jail as a jailing hub, thereby expanding significantly their capacities to boost municipal revenues by arresting, jailing, and coercing payments from more and more poor residents of the St. Louis region for minor traffic tickets. C. The Defendant Municipalities’ Unlawful Policies and Practices
64. The Defendants’ unlawful scheme generally works as follows: an individual is stopped (often illegitimately) in one of the Defendant Municipalities for a traffic offense or other minor violation. In many cases, these violations are “crimes of poverty,” meaning that they result, at least in part, from the individual’s inability to pay for things like insurance, vehicle registration fees, etc.
65. The police officer issues the person a citation and informs her that she can either pay the fine or appear at the municipal court for the relevant jurisdiction at a designated date and time. In some cases, the person can simply afford to pay the citation and thereby avoid the clutches of the municipal court system. But many in the St. Louis area are indigent and cannot afford to pay such citations without sacrificing basic necessities like food, diapers, and rent. For these individuals, the system works differently—it becomes a Kafkaesque web of indignities and incarceration that plunge the victim ever deeper into poverty.
66. An indigent person who cannot afford to pay a fine from an alleged traffic offense or other minor violation must appear in one of the Defendants’ municipal courts. There, she is
14 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF THE RESIDENT POPULATION (JULY 1, 2015), http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
15 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 16 of 79 PageID #: 16
forced to wait in line—in some cases, for hours—before being called before a municipal judge who will ask whether she has the money to pay, on the spot, the fine plus court costs. The municipal judge does not inquire as to whether the person is indigent or can afford to pay the fine, nor does he offer to provide a lawyer if the person cannot afford one. Instead, the municipal judge asks a simple question: do you have the money to pay today, yes or no? In many cases, the answer is no.
67. In the many cases in which the individual cannot come up with the requisite funds at the courthouse, municipal judges in the Defendant Municipalities regularly employ several tactics to coerce payment: (i) in some cases, the municipal judge instructs the person that she must return to court at a future date and time with the required funds, plus interest, or she will be jailed; (ii) in other cases, the municipal judge instructs the person to see the court clerk to set up a payment plan, which will require the person to pay in installments, subject to exorbitant interest rates, surcharges, and other fees; and (iii) in other cases, the municipal judge detains the person at the courthouse for the remainder of the court session (if not longer), instructing her to contact friends and family to bring money to the courthouse to secure the person’s release.
68. In all three scenarios, the individual faces the possibility of jail time if she is not able to pay the fine and associated court costs, interest, surcharges, and other fees. Municipal court officials in the Defendant Municipalities, including the municipal judges and clerks, regularly instruct court attendees that failure to pay a fine and other costs will result in jail time. Indeed, the residents of the Defendant Municipalities commonly understand that attending a municipal court session without the funds necessary to pay off a citation or other debt can result in jail time, irrespective of whether the individual actually has the ability to pay. Defendants’ tactics thus frighten many people, including many of the Plaintiffs, away from municipal court
16 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 17 of 79 PageID #: 17
dates when those individuals do not have enough money to pay their fines and other debts. This
enables the Defendant Municipalities ultimately to squeeze more money from these poor
residents.
69. If an individual misses or is alleged to have missed a court date, the Defendant
Municipality’s computer system automatically generates an arrest warrant for “Failure to Pay” or
“Failure to Appear.” According to recent reports from the state auditor’s office, no judge or prosecutor reviews or signs these arrest warrants.15
70. Often, the computer system auto-generates an arrest warrant even where (a) the
individual did, in fact, attend the court session, but the municipal clerk or other court official
erred in recording the person’s absence, (b) the individual did not receive adequate notice of the
court date, or (c) the individual had a valid excuse for her absence -- e.g., because she was
detained by another municipality, had a court date in another municipality, or was ill.
71. The Defendant Municipalities issue hundreds, if not thousands, of arrest warrants
for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” each year. These arrest warrants are often pretextual
15 See Summary of Audit Findings Judiciary---Municipal Divisions, Report No. 2016-046, available at http://app.auditor.mo.gov/AuditReports/AudRpt2.aspx?id=60, which states:
The Municipal Judge did not sign warrants issued and did not issue written authorization for the Court Clerk/Administrator to sign warrants on his behalf. In addition, the Municipal Judge allowed the Court Clerk/Administrator to use his signature stamp on warrants and failure to appear notices. Without the signature or written authorization, there is no documentation the warrants were authorized. In addition, the municipal division did not always issue warrants timely. Supreme Court Rule 37.45 states a warrant shall be signed by the judge or by the clerk of the court when directed by the judge for a specific warrant. To ensure warrants are properly issued in accordance with Supreme Court rules, the Municipal Judge should sign warrants or provide specific written authorization for the Court Clerk/Administrator to sign warrants and discontinue allowing the use of his facsimile signature. In addition, warrants should be issued timely to ensure outstanding court appearances and fines are addressed.
17 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 18 of 79 PageID #: 18
and are simply a mechanism by which the Defendant Municipalities can coerce indigent persons to pay fines and costs that they cannot actually afford.
72. Irrespective of which jurisdiction issued the warrant for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear,” the arrest warrant empowers any of the Defendant Municipalities to stop and arrest the individual the warrant identifies. Having arrested this person, an officer may take the individual to: (i) the municipal jail of the municipality in which the person was arrested, (ii) the municipal jail of the municipality that issued the arrest warrant, or, in many cases, (iii) the St. Ann jail, which contracts with each of the Defendant Municipalities to provide jailing services.
73. Once the individual arrives at the jail, she can secure her release immediately if she is able to pay off her entire debt (including any interest, fees, or other costs). In some cases, a municipal jail will release the individual if she is able to pay a portion of her debt, taking whatever money the individual has on-hand or can obtain from family and friends.
74. If the individual cannot pay off her debt to the satisfaction of the municipal jail officials, she typically is held in jail for up to three days (and in some cases, even longer). In some cases, she may be transferred between the Defendants’ municipal jails. But in all cases, the basic construct is the same for people arrested for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” in connection with unpaid tickets for traffic violations and other municipal code offenses: one of the Defendants holds the person in jail unless and until she pays off her “debt,” generally for at least three days, at which point she is released or passed on to the custody of another municipality, which holds her in jail unless and until she pays off her “debt” to that municipality, and so on.
75. In almost all cases, an individual arrested for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” does not appear before a judge to answer for the alleged crime of failing to attend a
18 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 19 of 79 PageID #: 19
court date. Instead, after her release from jail, the individual receives a new court date at which a
municipal judge will ask the same question: do you have money today to pay your fines, yes or
no? Not just the original fine for the traffic stop, but now multiplied many times over because of
the individual’s inability to pay and sometimes because Defendants’ abusive tactics have scared
away Plaintiffs and others from even coming to court. In this manner, the cycle repeats itself,
month after month, year after year.
76. The practices described in this “typical” example are ubiquitous in the Defendant
Municipalities. As a matter of policy and practice, municipal officials in the Defendant
Municipalities (including judges, police officers, and court clerks, among others) routinely:
a. Issue citations for supposed traffic and municipal code violations (which, on information and belief, are the product of discriminatory enforcement of the law);
b. Demand payment of fines for such traffic and municipal violations, without any inquiry into whether the person has the ability to pay, and without offering to provide a lawyer if the person is indigent and cannot afford one;
c. Establish draconian payment plans with usurious interest rates and other fees for indigent persons who cannot afford to pay their fines, and without offering nonmonetary alternatives to satisfy the obligation;
d. Threaten people, including the indigent, with incarceration under inhumane conditions if they cannot afford to pay their fines, court costs, and other fees;
e. Issue auto-generated arrest warrants for “Failure to Appear,” even if the person did in fact appear, was unable to appear for good reason (including lack of notice), or was intimidated by municipal officials into not appearing because of the well-founded fear that they would be summarily thrown into jail if they appeared without being able to pay;
f. Incarcerate people for their inability to pay fines, court costs, and other fees, or on the basis of unlawful, auto-generated arrest
19 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 20 of 79 PageID #: 20
warrants for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” at a court date; g. Release people from jail immediately if they are able to pay their outstanding debts to the Defendant Municipality⎯or, in some cases, a portion of their outstanding debts⎯even if the purported basis for the arrest was the criminal act of failing to appear at a court date; and h. Detain people in local jails for up to three days, if not longer, if they could not afford to pay their outstanding debts, or at least some portion of such debts. i. Debt-Collection Proceedings in the Defendants’ Municipal Courts 77. The Defendants’ municipal courts are staffed primarily by municipal judges, city attorneys and/or prosecutors, and court clerks. 78. There is extraordinary overlap among these court officials in the Defendant Municipalities. For example, attorneys from a single law firm (with fewer than 20 attorneys) serve as judge, prosecutor, or city attorney in more than 27% of St. Louis County municipalities (at least 25 out of 90), including many of the Defendant Municipalities. Likewise, in some instances, the city attorney for one municipality serves as the municipal judge in another. Put simply, Defendants have created and operated an incestuous system with no meaningful lines between prosecutor and judge; it cannot possibly dispense justice. 79. Although each of the Defendant Municipalities maintains and operates its own municipal court, the policies and practices in these municipalities are virtually the same in all material respects. 80. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendants conduct municipal court sessions approximately only one to four times per month. 81. The purported rationale of these municipal court sessions is to adjudicate traffic violations and other minor offenses; the real purpose, however, is to collect payments, in an
20 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 21 of 79 PageID #: 21
assembly-line fashion, for outstanding tickets from alleged traffic and other minor municipal code violations.
82. If a person is too poor to pay her debts, her case can go on indefinitely while Defendants impose ever-mounting fees and surcharges for missed debt-collection payments.
83. A person can end this debt collection process only by paying what the Defendant Municipality claims that she owes, including any surcharges or fees, which can balloon to sums that dwarf the original fine for the minor traffic offense that launched the vicious cycle.
84. Defendants do not advise people appearing at these municipal court sessions about their relevant rights under federal or Missouri law, including applicable constitutional rights and state-law defenses and procedures, nor do Defendants provide people any realistic avenue of escape from the pernicious web in which they are entangled.
85. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendants do not to provide an attorney to people appearing at these municipal court sessions.
86. Pursuant to imprison those who are unable to satisfy whatever fines and penalties (either in full or as part of a repayment schedule) Defendants set at these municipal court sessions. Defendants do so without providing due process, without conducting any meaningful or individualized inquiry into a person’s ability to pay, and without considering the availability or suitability of alternatives to imprisonment.
87. Because of Defendants’ policy and practice of not appointing counsel, the vast majority of those jailed for failing to satisfy the payment plan condition that Defendants impose, or in connection with an arrest warrant for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear,” have no access to an attorney.
21 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 22 of 79 PageID #: 22
ii. Defendants’ Flawed and Unlawful Warrant Process 88. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendants apply arbitrary and illegal policies for the issuance and enforcement of arrest warrants for those unable to satisfy Defendants’ extortionate demands. 89. Defendants issue arrest warrants for failure to make a payment by a certain date (“Failure to Pay”) without probable cause to believe that the person has the ability to make a payment. Defendants prey on the unrepresented, refusing to withdraw arrest warrants even for those who are plainly too poor to make payments. 90. Defendants also routinely issue arrest warrants for “Failure to Appear” at court dates without giving people adequate notice of the supposed obligation to appear, such as when Defendants fail to serve a valid summons or when the Defendants reschedule a hearing without providing reasonable notice. 91. The arrest warrants that Defendants issue for “Failure to Pay” and “Failure to Appear” at court dates are auto-generated by a computer program, based on information that the municipal court clerks enter manually into the computer. No judge or magistrate approves these warrants before they are issued. On information and belief, all of the Defendant Municipalities use this same computer program to generate arrest warrants without judicial involvement in connection with debt-collection proceedings in their municipal courts. 92. After arresting a person based on a warrant, Defendants routinely demand that she make immediate payment and, if she does not do so, Defendants hold the person in jail and unnecessarily delay presentment in court for days or weeks in an effort to coerce the victim to pay for her freedom, regardless of her indigence.
22 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 23 of 79 PageID #: 23
iii. The Arbitrary and Indefinite Detention of the Indigent 93. After Defendants book a person in jail for either “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear,” Defendants offer immediate release in exchange for a cash payment to the municipality on whose behalf they are incarcerating her. The amount of cash that Defendants require for release is the total debt the person owes from judgments in old traffic and other misdemeanor cases. 94. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendants hold people in jail, in abject conditions, for an indeterminate period of several days or more unless and until they or their families pay the municipality the amounts Defendants demand. 95. For those individuals that Defendants imprison for failing to satisfy a previously established payment schedule, Defendants confiscate any previous amounts paid by the person and reset the person’s debts. Defendants take these actions without providing any meaningful process or access to counsel. 96. Without affording any legal process, Defendants also tack on a “warrant” fee for the person’s missed payment date. The person is not arraigned on any new charge for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” before Defendants impose the additional “warrant” fee, nor do Defendants allow the person a meaningful opportunity to defend against such a potential charge, or show that Defendants have not satisfied its elements.16 Again, Defendants appoint no attorney
16 The practice of adding on an illegal warrant recall fee is widespread throughout the region. Counsel for Plaintiffs has sued several municipalities in state court for imposing these fees. See White v. City of Pine Lawn, 14SL-CC04194 (St. Louis County Circuit Court, Dec. 2014); Pruitt v. City of Wellston, 14SL-CC04192 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Dec. 2014); Lampkin v. City of Jennings, 14SL-CC04207 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Dec. 2014); Wann v. City of St. Louis, 1422CC10272 (St. Louis City Cir. Ct., Dec. 2014); Reed v. City of Ferguson, 14SL-CC04195 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Dec. 2014); Eldridge v. City of St. John, 15SL-00456 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Feb. 2015); Watkins v. City of Florissant, 16SL-CC00165 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Jan. 2016).
23 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 24 of 79 PageID #: 24
to assist the person on any new charge. Defendants simply autocratically add the charges to the person’s debts.
97. Through these practices, Defendants strong-arm many impoverished people in the Defendant Municipalities and elsewhere in the metropolitan area to pay Defendants thousands of dollars over a period of many years based on a few relatively inexpensive initial tickets.
98. If they were able, a person could end this cycle by paying the balance of her debt. It is and has been the policy and practice of the Defendants to allow any inmate at any time to pay the full amount of the debt owed and to be released immediately, terminating all existing “cases” for which debt is being collected.
iv. Sequential Detentions on Behalf of Multiple Municipalities 99. In many cases, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated receive citations for traffic and other minor violations in multiple different municipalities (in some cases, for the exact same violation, such as a broken taillight). 100. Many of the Plaintiffs, and others like them, have outstanding debts in several different municipalities that they simply cannot afford to pay. As these rapidly compounding fines, fees, costs, and surcharges from multiple municipalities pile up, the likelihood that an indigent person will be able to pay off even one municipality diminishes greatly, creating a never-ending spiral of debt, interest charges, missed payments, and incarceration. 101. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendants hold inmates in their jails on behalf of multiple municipalities. In some instances, Defendants imprison people for days or weeks at a time on behalf of multiple municipalities in a sequential fashion (i.e., Defendants hold the inmate in one municipality’s jail for multiple other municipalities, one after another).
24 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 25 of 79 PageID #: 25
102. In other words, as soon as an inmate pays off his debt for one municipality to secure his “release,” Defendants return him to his jail cell (or sometimes transfer him to the custody of a different municipality) for the alleged failure to pay debts owed to another municipality.
103. In this manner, Defendants may hold an indigent person in jail for extended periods of time⎯weeks or, in some cases, even months⎯simply because he is too poor to pay off his debts, and his imprisonment only exacerbates his poverty, making him even less able to break out of this vicious cycle of harassment and extortion.
v. Defendants Create a Culture of Fear 104. Defendants’ policies and practices have engendered fear among the poorest residents of the St. Louis metropolitan area. 105. Many of these residents do not, or are reluctant to, leave their homes, or to travel between municipalities, for fear of being stopped, arrested, and incarcerated based on outstanding debts on traffic tickets that they cannot afford to pay. 106. They are afraid to appear at the payment window or in Defendants’ courts to explain their indigence because they justifiably fear that Defendants will jail them without any meaningful process. This allows Defendants to jack up the fees even higher. 107. The fear that Defendants have fostered has further degraded the quality of life of the poorest residents in Defendants’ municipalities and elsewhere in the metropolitan area. Many have cut back on food, clothing, utilities, sanitary home repairs, and other basic necessities of life to satisfy, or try to satisfy, Defendants’ rapacious demands for money.
25 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 26 of 79 PageID #: 26
vi. The Cycle of Debt and Jailing 108. Like the other impoverished people stuck in the tentacles of Defendants’ brutal and pernicious system, Plaintiffs have been overwhelmed by the combination of rapidly compounding fines, fees, costs, and surcharges from multiple municipalities, as well as the cycle of repeated jailings that leads to lost jobs, poor health, and inadequate care for dependents. After scraping together cash from family and friends and borrowing money to pay off one Defendant, Plaintiffs and other Class members often find themselves under arrest by another Defendant. 109. For years, Plaintiffs have tried unsuccessfully to navigate this system without financial resources and without the assistance of a lawyer who understands the process—never knowing if arrest awaits when they leave the house, fearing, if they are arrested, indefinite incarceration because of their poverty. The futility of these efforts fundamentally alters Plaintiffs’ lives and often breeds a level of hopelessness that corrodes any bond with the community. 110. The fear of losing basic rights with no recourse is a daily fact of life for Plaintiffs and thousands of others in the metropolitan area. D. The Defendant Municipalities Act Pursuant to a Common Plan or Scheme 111. The Defendant Municipalities have acted, and continue to act, in concert to perpetuate this unlawful scheme, incarcerating indigent persons based on their inability to pay fines and associated costs from traffic tickets and other minor municipal violations. 112. Each of the Defendant Municipalities routinely arrests and detains people on the basis of auto-generated or otherwise unlawful arrest warrants that other Defendant Municipalities issue in connection with unpaid tickets for traffic and other minor offenses. The Defendant Municipalities know, or should know, that these arrest warrants are unlawful.
26 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 27 of 79 PageID #: 27
113. Each of the Defendant Municipalities, excluding St. Ann, only has the capacity to hold a few individuals at any given time, which limits those municipalities’ ability to generate funds.
114. In contrast, “[t]he jail in St. Ann is much bigger than others in nearby towns. It sleeps 42, not including a pen for short-timers and a juvenile area.”17
115. St. Ann provides jailing services for each of the other Defendant Municipalities. Pursuant to contractual arrangements, St. Ann charges each of the other Defendant Municipalities a fee for each day St. Ann incarcerates an individual on the municipality’s behalf. On information and belief, this fee is $35 per day.
116. St. Ann routinely holds indigent persons in its jail on behalf of multiple municipalities. In some instances, St. Ann holds inmates for days or weeks at a time on behalf of the Defendant Municipalities in a sequential fashion (i.e., the inmate is held in St. Ann’s jail for multiple other municipalities, one after another).
117. For example, St. Ann might hold an individual in its jail for three days on behalf of Defendant Municipality X. Upon the person’s “release” from the custody of Defendant Municipality X, St. Ann immediately transfers the person to the custody of Defendant Municipality Y (on whose behalf St. Ann also holds the person). Thus, the person never sees the light of day. Instead, St. Ann continues to hold the person in its jail, but now it is on behalf of Defendant Municipality Y (unless, of course, the person can afford to pay for her release).
118. As described above, there also is substantial overlap among the municipal judges, city attorneys, and prosecutors that form the bedrock of Defendants’ municipal court system.

17 Bogan, supra at n. 3.

27 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 28 of 79 PageID #: 28
E. The Named Plaintiffs’ Imprisonment 119. Defendants’ policies and practices in collecting unpaid fines, fees, costs, and
surcharges relating to traffic tickets and other minor offenses, for at least the past five years, caused and exemplifies the violations of the named Plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights.
i. Quinton M. Thomas 120. Quinton Thomas is a 28-year-old man who resides in St. Louis, Missouri. He is African-American. 121. Mr. Thomas has been jailed in the St. Ann Jail at least three times on warrants issued by Normandy and Edmundson, among other municipalities. The warrants initially stemmed from minor, driving-related offenses, such as running a stop sign, no proof of insurance, and improper vehicle registration. 122. In 2012, officers of the Normandy Police Department stopped Mr. Thomas for invalid license plates and failure to register his vehicle. The officers issued Mr. Thomas citations for these violations totaling $600. 123. Mr. Thomas could not afford to pay the $600 fine. Mr. Thomas appeared at the Normandy Municipal Court and explained to the municipal court judge that he could not afford to pay the $600 fine. 124. The municipal court judge responded that if Mr. Thomas did not pay at least $100, Normandy would issue a warrant for his arrest. Mr. Thomas responded that he could not afford to pay $100. He asked whether he could pay $50 instead, and the judge stated that he could not. Neither the municipal court judge nor any other court official made any inquiry into Mr. Thomas’ ability to pay, nor did they appoint an attorney for him.
28 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 29 of 79 PageID #: 29
125. Neither the municipal court judge nor any other court official offered Mr. Thomas alternatives to the fine, such as community service, even though Mr. Thomas unequivocally informed them that he could not afford to pay even $100 of the fine.
126. The municipal court judge, apparently indifferent to Mr. Thomas’ pleas of indigence, later issued a warrant for his arrest based on Mr. Thomas’ failure to pay $100.
127. In 2013, Mr. Thomas was driving to work and was stopped by officers of the Edmundson Police Department for allegedly failing to make a complete stop at a stop sign. Mr. Thomas denies running the stop sign. The officers informed Mr. Thomas that he had outstanding warrants in Normandy, Pine Lawn and St. John, among others. The Edmundson police officers took Mr. Thomas to the St. Ann Jail.
128. Officers at the St. Ann Jail informed Mr. Thomas that he could be released if he paid a $150 bond. There was no bail hearing. Mr. Thomas could not afford to make this payment and thus was unable to secure his release. The St. Ann Jail held Mr. Thomas for three days on behalf of Normandy and Edmundson.
129. The conditions in the St. Ann Jail were terrible. The jail cells were packed four people to a cell. The cells were so filthy that Mr. Thomas did not want to make contact with the walls or even the mattresses, which appeared not to have been cleaned in years. Jail officers provided Mr. Thomas (and other inmates) with a used blanket, but nothing else to separate himself from the disgusting and unsanitary mattress.
130. The food in the St. Ann Jail was unhealthy and nearly inedible. Every meal consisted of a bologna sandwich (with greenish meat and hard bread), applesauce, and black coffee.
29 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 30 of 79 PageID #: 30
131. After three days, the St. Ann Jail “released” Mr. Thomas, and officers from the City of St. John transported Mr. Thomas to the St. John Police Department.
132. The St. John Police told Mr. Thomas that he had an outstanding warrant for an allegedly-unpaid parking ticket in St. John, information of which Mr. Thomas was previously unaware. Officers further informed him that, because of additional late fees and fines that had accumulated over time, the amount owed had ballooned from approximately $100 to almost $500.
133. Police officers in St. John informed Mr. Thomas that they were going to take him to the St. Louis County Justice Center in Clayton unless he could make a payment of at least $120. There was no bail hearing. Mr. Thomas contacted his father, who was able to pay the $120 bond to secure Mr. Thomas’ release from St. John.
134. Shortly after his release, Mr. Thomas appeared at the Edmundson Municipal Court and explained to the municipal court judge that he could not afford to pay the $300 citation for running a stop sign.
135. The municipal court judge was indifferent to Mr. Thomas’ pleas of indigence and directed Mr. Thomas to see the municipal court clerk to set up a payment plan. The payment plan, however, only worsened Mr. Thomas’ situation—it included additional fees and costs and exorbitant interest rates, resulting in monthly payments that Mr. Thomas could not afford.
136. Neither the municipal court judge nor any other court official made any inquiry into Mr. Thomas’ ability to pay, nor did they appoint an attorney for Mr. Thomas.
137. Neither the municipal court judge nor any other court official offered Mr. Thomas alternatives to the fine, such as community service, even though Mr. Thomas unequivocally informed them that he could not afford to pay the fine.
30 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 31 of 79 PageID #: 31
138. A key reason Mr. Thomas could not afford to make the monthly payments required by the payment plan was that he had outstanding (and continually compounding) fines and court costs stemming from tickets for traffic and other minor violations in several other municipalities, including St. Charles, St. John, and Normandy.
139. Mr. Thomas missed a monthly payment because he could not afford to make the payment. Because Mr. Thomas could not afford to make the monthly payments, Edmundson issued a warrant for his arrest for “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear.”
140. As a result of the traffic tickets⎯only one of which resulted from an alleged moving violation⎯and warrants issued by Edmundson and Normandy, Mr. Thomas’ license was suspended in 2013, causing Mr. Thomas to lose his trucking job (which required a commercial driver’s license).
141. In January 2015, officers of the Dellwood Police Department responded to complaints of a domestic disturbance at Mr. Thomas’ home stemming from a verbal argument between Mr. Thomas and his girlfriend. The officers ran Mr. Thomas’ and his girlfriend’s names and discovered that both had outstanding warrants for unpaid traffic tickets. Notably, Dellwood did not issue any charges and did not make any arrests in connection with the domestic disturbance complaint.
142. The officers arrested Mr. Thomas and took him to the St. Louis County Justice Center in Clayton on outstanding warrants for unpaid traffic tickets. At the Justice Center, jail officers informed Mr. Thomas that they would release him if he paid a bond. There was no bail hearing. Mr. Thomas could not afford to make this payment and thus was unable to secure his release. Mr. Thomas was held in Clayton for approximately three days.
31 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 32 of 79 PageID #: 32
143. After approximately three days, officers at the Justice Center transferred Mr. Thomas to the St. Ann Jail, which held him on behalf of Normandy and Edmundson, among other municipalities, for the outstanding warrants described above. Officers at the St. Ann Jail informed Mr. Thomas that they would release him if he paid a bond. There was no bail hearing. Mr. Thomas was once again unable to pay a bond to secure his release from St. Ann.
144. As on previous occasions, the St. Ann Jail incarcerated Mr. Thomas in overcrowded and filthy cells, and provided disgusting and unhealthy food.
145. After at least one day in the St. Ann Jail, officers at the St. Ann Jail transferred Mr. Thomas to the O’Fallon Jail.
146. Officers at the O’Fallon Jail informed Mr. Thomas that his bond to secure his release was $340. There was no bail hearing. Mr. Thomas was able to scrounge together enough money from family and friends to pay a $340 bond to O’Fallon in order to secure his release.
147. In May 2016, officers of the Beverly Hills Police Department stopped Mr. Thomas for a broken bumper. The officers informed Mr. Thomas that he had outstanding warrants in Normandy and Edmundson, among others, and took Mr. Thomas to the Beverly Hills Police Department. The officers detained Mr. Thomas at the Beverly Hills Police Department for approximately one hour.
148. The officers told Mr. Thomas that he would need to pay $300 “to get out.” There was no bail hearing. Mr. Thomas was unable to pay that bond amount.
149. While Mr. Thomas was detained at the Beverly Hills Police Department, the officers refused to allow any of Mr. Thomas’ friends or family to retrieve the car. As a result, Mr. Thomas’ car was sent to impound. Mr. Thomas could not afford to get the car out of impound and consequently lost his car permanently.
32 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 33 of 79 PageID #: 33
150. Officers from the St. Ann Police Department picked Mr. Thomas up from the Beverly Hills Police Department and took him to the St. Ann Jail on behalf of Normandy and Edmundson (in connection with warrants for unpaid traffic tickets and “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear” charges, as described above).
151. As on previous occasions, the St. Ann Jail incarcerated Mr. Thomas in overcrowded and filthy cells, and provided disgusting and unhealthy food.
152. Mr. Thomas was held in the St. Ann Jail for a day and a half. Mr. Thomas missed a day of work at his construction job because he was incarcerated. As a result of missing work due to his incarceration for failure to pay fines and costs from minor, traffic-related offenses, Mr. Thomas was fired from his construction job.
ii. Roelif Earl Carter 153. Roelif Earl Carter is a 63-year-old husband and the sole provider for his wife and daughter. He is African-American. 154. Mr. Carter is a Veteran of the United States Air Force and was honorably discharged from service in 1976. 155. After his service in the Air Force, Mr. Carter worked for the Ford Motor Company for thirteen years until he suffered a brain aneurysm that left him unable to work. He currently receives Supplemental Security Income due to his disability. 156. Mr. Carter has been jailed in the St. Ann Jail on at least four occasions in connection with warrants issued by Normandy and Cool Valley. The warrants issued by Normandy and Cool Valley initially stemmed from minor traffic infractions, including driving with a suspended license and failure to provide proof of insurance, from the early 2000s.
33 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 34 of 79 PageID #: 34
157. In October 2002, officers of the Cool Valley Police Department stopped Mr. Carter and issued him a citation for failure to provide proof of insurance.
158. Mr. Carter could not afford to pay Cool Valley’s fine. On multiple occasions, Mr. Carter appeared at the Cool Valley Municipal Court in connection with the fine for his traffic offense. Mr. Carter explained to the municipal court judge that he could not afford to pay the citation. The municipal court judge did not make any inquiry into Mr. Carter’s ability to pay, nor did the judge appoint an attorney for Mr. Carter. Instead, the judge directed Mr. Carter to see the municipal court clerk to set up a payment plan.
159. The municipal court clerk set up a payment plan for Mr. Carter, requiring him to pay $50 per month until his fine (including court costs, surcharges, and interest) was paid off in full.
160. When Mr. Carter was able to make his monthly payment (which he was able to do on some occasions), he was not required to appear at scheduled court sessions of the Cool Valley Municipal Court.
161. However, when Mr. Carter was not able to make his monthly payment, Cool Valley instructed that he was required to appear at scheduled court dates at the Cool Valley Municipal Court. At these municipal court sessions, the judge inquired only as to whether Mr. Carter had his monthly payment with him.
162. On each of the occasions Mr. Carter appeared at the Cool Valley Municipal Court, Mr. Carter did not have the requisite funds to make his monthly payment. Thus, on each occasion, the municipal court judge directed Mr. Carter to sit in the back of the courthouse until the end of the session (which could be up to two hours later), at which point the judge directed Mr. Carter to see the municipal court clerk. When Mr. Carter left the court, he owed additional
34 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 35 of 79 PageID #: 35
court costs, surcharges, and interest payments that bore no relationship to the actual cost, if any, the court incurred by virtue of the missed payment.
163. When Mr. Carter was not able to make his monthly payment, the Cool Valley Municipal Court automatically generated a warrant for his arrest (for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear”). On multiple occasions in the last five years, Cool Valley automatically generated arrest warrants for Mr. Carter for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear.”
164. Mr Carter had outstanding arrest warrants from Cool Valley from 2002 until early 2016, when ArchCity Defenders secured a dismissal of charges against Mr. Carter. All of his warrants were for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” offenses in connection with trafficrelated infractions for which Mr. Carter could not afford to pay the fine.
165. In November 2012, officers of the Normandy Police Department stopped Mr. Carter and issued him a citation for allegedly running a red light, driving with a suspended license, and no proof of insurance.
166. Mr. Carter could not afford to pay the fine issued by Normandy. Mr. Carter knew that many municipalities, including Normandy, did not accept partial payment and engaged in a regular practice of arresting people who were unable to pay their fines. Because he could not afford to pay the fine, Mr. Carter did not appear at his scheduled court date and Normandy issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Carter for “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear.”
167. Following Normandy’s issuance of an arrest warrant for Mr. Carter’s alleged “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear,” Mr. Carter has appeared (or attempted to appear) in Normandy Municipal Court on at least two occasions. On neither occasion did the municipal court judge or any other municipal court official make any inquiry into Mr. Carter’s ability to pay, nor did the judge appoint an attorney for Mr. Carter.
35 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 36 of 79 PageID #: 36
168. On the first occasion, the municipal courthouse was overcrowded and Mr. Carter was unable to get in the door. Even though Mr. Carter tried to appear for his court date and was unable to do so only because the courthouse was overcrowded, Normandy issued a warrant for Mr. Carter’s arrest for “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear.”
169. On the second occasion, in or around January 2013, Mr. Carter appeared before a municipal court judge. The judge asked whether Mr. Carter had money with him to pay the outstanding fines and costs. Mr. Carter explained that he did not have money with him and could not afford to pay the fine, and asked whether community service was an option since Mr. Carter was indigent and could not afford to pay. The judge said no to Mr. Carter’s request for community service and directed Mr. Carter to see the municipal court clerk.
170. The municipal court clerk informed Mr. Carter that if he did not pay $100 by the next day, Normandy would issue a warrant for Mr. Carter’s arrest. Mr. Carter could not afford to make the $100 payment, and Normandy thereafter issued a warrant for his arrest.
171. As of March 2015, Mr. Carter had five outstanding arrest warrants from Normandy, all of which are for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” offenses in connection with traffic-related infractions for which Mr. Carter could not afford to pay the fine.
172. In December 2012, Mr. Carter was pulled over in Ferguson by officers of the Ferguson Police Department. The officers informed Mr. Carter that he had outstanding warrants in Cool Valley and Normandy (as described above) and took Mr. Carter to the St. Ann Jail.
173. Officers of the St. Ann Jail informed Mr. Carter that he could be released if he paid a $500 bond. There was no bail hearing. Mr. Carter could not afford to make this payment and thus was unable to secure his release.
36 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 37 of 79 PageID #: 37
174. The St. Ann Jail held Mr. Carter for three days on behalf of Cool Valley. After three days, Cool Valley “released” Mr. Carter. However, he remained in the St. Ann Jail, which now held him on behalf of Normandy (based on the outstanding warrants, as described above). The St. Ann Jail officers again informed Mr. Carter that he could be released if he paid a $500 bond. Again, there was no bail hearing. And again, Mr. Carter was unable to make this payment to secure his release.
175. Mr. Carter spent three days in the St. Ann Jail on behalf of Normandy and then⎯after a total of six days⎯the St. Ann Jail finally released him.
176. In or around December 2013, officers of the Ferguson Police Department stopped Mr. Carter and again incarcerated him in the St. Ann Jail on behalf of Cool Valley and Normandy for the same “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear” warrants discussed above.
177. The St. Ann Jail again held Mr. Carter for three days on behalf of Cool Valley and three days on behalf of Normandy (for a total of six days).
178. After six days, the St. Ann Jail “released” Mr. Carter on behalf of Normandy. However, officers of the St. Ann Jail informed Mr. Carter that they were continuing to hold him on behalf of St. Louis City. Mr. Carter told the jail officers that he did not have any outstanding warrants in St. Louis City. The officers, presumably after confirming that Mr. Carter did not have any outstanding warrants in St. Louis City, finally released him at 2:00 a.m. The officers never allowed Mr. Carter to make a free phone call, nor did they provide him any means of transportation from the Jail. As a result, Mr. Carter had to walk 15 miles to his home on a cold night, finally reaching his home the next morning.
37 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 38 of 79 PageID #: 38
179. The conditions in the St. Ann Jail were filthy. Mr. Carter was given an orange jumpsuit to wear. The food provided to Mr. Carter was inadequate, sometimes only a honey bun and a packaged pot pie for the whole day.
iii. Bradley Jiles 180. Bradley Jiles is a 24-year-old African American man. 181. Mr. Jiles has been jailed more than ten times in the last five years in connection with alleged municipal ordinance violations. Over the span of approximately one year — from the summer of 2014 to the spring of 2015 — Mr. Jiles was jailed on four separate occasions in connection with unpaid fines for traffic and other minor violations. 182. Particularly, in June 2015, Mr. Jiles was driving to court after work to obtain a replacement title for his car after the original title had been damaged in the rain. He was driving within the speed limit and was pulled over. When Mr. Jiles inquired as to why, the officer told him that he was unregistered, had been speeding, and looked suspicious. The officer said to Mr. Jiles, “I could be an asshole and give you all these tickets because of your attitude.” The officer cited Mr. Jiles for failure to register, improper vehicle registration, and expired license. 183. Mr. Jiles was arrested and spent two days in St. Louis County Justice Center. The holding cell was covered with old gum and graffiti. Mr. Jiles pled guilty and was sentenced to two days of time served. 184. Officers at the Justice Center then transported Mr. Jiles to the Hazelwood Jail on a warrant for “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear” in connection with an unpaid traffic ticket for driving with an expired license.
38 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 39 of 79 PageID #: 39
185. After 24 to 48 hours, the Hazelwood Jail “released” Mr. Jiles and transported him to the St. Ann Jail on a warrant for “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear” in connection with an unpaid traffic ticket in Edmundson for driving with invalid license plates.
186. Officers at the St. Ann Jail told Mr. Jiles that he could secure his release if he paid several hundred dollars in bond to Edmundson (based on outstanding fines for traffic and other minor violations). There was no bail hearing.
187. Mr. Jiles could not afford to pay the bond to secure his release. As a result, the St. Ann Jail held Mr. Jiles for at least three days. While he was in the St. Ann Jail, Mr. Jiles repeatedly asked how long he would be held, but was told nothing.
188. Finally, one of the St. Ann Jail officers noticed in Mr. Jiles’s file that Mr. Jiles should have been released. The St. Ann Jail released Mr. Jiles later that day.
189. Mr. Jiles lost income because of the amount of time he spent in jail, all for what amounted to routine, unjustified, or discriminatory traffic stops and minor municipal violations.
iv. Angela Davis 190. Angela Davis is a 44 year-old African-American mother of four. She resides in St. Louis, Missouri and has worked for Wells Fargo Advisors in Frontenac for the last eight years. 191. Ms. Davis has appeared before multiple municipal courts, including Normandy and Frontenac, but fears making an appearance if she cannot afford to pay. She has been told on at least one occasion, by a Normandy court clerk, that she would be locked up if she did not show up to court and pay. 192. Despite the threat of imprisonment, Ms. Davis was never offered legal counsel by any municipal court. Nor did any court ever inquire into her ability to pay the fine. Rather, in
39 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 40 of 79 PageID #: 40
every instance in which Ms. Davis has appeared in municipal court, the municipal court judge has dictated the fine, recited a list of pre-determined options⎯none of which were suitable for Ms. Davis’ individual circumstances⎯and informed Ms. Davis to speak with the clerk.
193. Ms. Davis makes every effort to pay off any outstanding debts, but her financial resources remain limited. She recently paid off her debt in Normandy, which took almost a year at $100/month, a significant financial burden. She also has sought relief through the “amnesty” program in several municipalities.18 Despite her efforts, she still has two warrants in Florissant outstanding with a pending amnesty application.
194. As a result, Ms. Davis has lived under a cloud of uncertainty that prevents her from living a normal life without fear of imprisonment due to her financial circumstances. At any time, Defendants⎯under the guise of a routine traffic stop⎯can and do arrest and jail Ms. Davis because she is unable to afford earlier fines.
195. A Sunday evening in September 2013 illustrates the manner in which Defendants punish Ms. Davis for her financial circumstances. That evening, Ms. Davis was waiting to make a left turn at a Florissant intersection. She had two passengers in her car. One of these passengers, Mr. David Hines, is African-American. The other is white.
18 St. Louis County offers an “amnesty” program in many of its municipal courts on a yearly basis. See, e.g., http://www.mslaca.org/index.php/amnesty-program/. Rather than acting as a true amnesty, this program simply allows participants to receive a voucher upon the payment of a $10 processing fee that must be presented at the municipal court’s next court date. At that court date, the participant must also present $100 in cash. If the participant pays $110, the warrant will not be executed. Even if the participant pays the $110 and has her warrant recalled, this “amnesty” program does not address the underlying fines and fees. The participant is placed back on a payment docket and is left without an attorney to negotiate his or her remaining fines. Additionally, it costs participants $110 per municipality where they have an active warrant. This can add up quickly to $500-$700 just to have the warrants recalled while the underlying cases remain pending.
40 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 41 of 79 PageID #: 41
196. While she waited, a police car turned around and pulled up next to her. After the light turned green, Ms. Davis made a left turn. The police car flashed its lights and pulled her over. The officer said he pulled Ms. Davis over because her tags were expired.
197. The officer ran the names of Ms. Davis and her two passengers. The search returned multiple warrants for Ms. Davis in Normandy from 2013 (no proof of insurance, failure to register her vehicle, and corresponding violations of “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear”), University City from 2012 (failure to register her vehicle and speeding), and Florissant (failure to register her vehicle).
198. After the police completed their search for outstanding warrants, they arrested Ms. Davis and Mr. Hines. The white passenger, despite having an outstanding warrant in Washington state, was not arrested.
199. Over the next 22 hours, Ms. Davis was dragged to four separate jails. Her first stop was Florissant Jail. She arrived there around 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. that Sunday night, leaving around 1:00 a.m. on Monday morning.
200. When she arrived at the Florissant Jail, officers informed her that she could secure her release if she paid a bond of $800, which was far beyond her ability to pay. There was no bail hearing. The officers did not inform Ms. Davis how that amount was calculated, nor did any official at the Florissant Jail ask if she would be able to afford payment. Instead, jail officers told Ms. Davis that she “gotta do some time” in Florissant for at least two-and-a-half hours “for her situation” before she could be passed off to the next municipality. In the meantime, Florissant forced Ms. Davis to don a prisoner’s jumpsuit.
201. Florissant failed to provide Ms. Davis a court date or any notice of next steps following her imprisonment. Instead, they handed her off to University City.
41 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 42 of 79 PageID #: 42
202. Upon arriving at University City, Ms. Davis learned that her sister had paid the $150 bond amount owed University City while Ms. Davis was imprisoned in Florissant. This payment should have been sufficient to secure Ms. Davis’ release, but it merely cleared her debt to University City.
203. University City held Ms. Davis in jail for approximately one hour. The jail was an older facility that was not well maintained, and had not been cleaned for quite some time.
204. University City next transported Ms. Davis to Frontenac. The Frontenac Jail held Ms. Davis for two hours. Ms. Davis did not know why the Frontenac Jail was holding her, nor did jail officers inform her of the reason for her incarceration.
205. After two hours, the Frontenac Jail “released” Ms. Davis and gave her a court date. When Ms. Davis later appeared at the Frontenac municipal court, she learned that the reason for her incarceration was an unpaid $21.40 court fee. Ms. Davis lost her freedom in Frontenac for approximately two hours for this de minimis fee. No effort was made to address this issue before she was jailed or to consider whether she had the ability to pay.
206. After her “release” from Frontenac, Ms. Davis was next transported to the St. Ann Jail. The St. Ann Jail held Ms. Davis on outstanding warrants in Normandy for unpaid traffic tickets. Officers at the St. Ann Jail made no inquiry into Mr. Davis’ ability to pay her outstanding fines.
207. Ms. Davis spent around six hours locked in the St. Ann Jail, growing increasingly unnerved by sharing a cramped, noisy cell with a schizophrenic inmate who was announcing her intent to kill someone. The guards made no effort to separate this inmate from others or otherwise to assure the safety of Ms. Davis and the other inmates.
42 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 43 of 79 PageID #: 43
208. Officers at the St. Ann Jail did not tell Ms. Davis why she was in jail and refused to discuss a bond. The officers told Ms. Davis that she would have to call the Normandy Municipal Court to find out how much money she owed.
209. The officers, however, did not allow Ms. Davis to make any calls, thereby preventing her from calling the court to determine how much money she owed, from attempting to obtain money from family or friends to secure her release, and from exercising her right to seek legal counsel.
210. After being detained for around two hours, Ms. Davis’ sister paid Ms. Davis’ bond for her Normandy warrant. Officers at the St. Ann Jail refused to release Ms. Davis, however, claiming she had a pending warrant in Berkeley.
211. Ms. Davis’ sister drove to Berkeley twice to pay her sister’s bond. On both occasions, Berkeley officials said that they had notified St. Ann that they did not want to detain Ms. Davis. Notwithstanding this communication from Berkeley, the St. Ann Jail arbitrarily and petulantly continued to hold Ms. Davis for several more hours.
212. Finally, the St. Ann Jail released Ms. Davis. Officers at the St. Ann Jail did not tell Ms. Davis why she had been released; they merely gave Ms. Davis a sheet of paper with a court date, which they had stapled to her belongings.
213. At no time during her stay in four separate jails did any police officer, guard or other official seek to ascertain Ms. Davis’ ability to pay the debts that the municipalities claimed that she owed.
214. At no time during her stay in four separate jails was Ms. Davis brought before a judge or offered assistance of counsel.
43 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 44 of 79 PageID #: 44
215. The Defendant Municipalities treated Ms. Davis with disrespect and made no effort to provide due process as they shuffled her from jail to jail.
v. Donya Pierce 216. Plaintiff Donya Pierce is a 26-year-old African-American mother of two children. 217. Ms. Pierce is currently employed at Mount Carmel Rehabilitation Center. 218. In March 2014, officers of the St. Ann Police Department pulled Ms. Pierce over for a routine traffic stop. Ms. Pierce was driving a male passenger at the time. 219. The officers searched the vehicle without Ms. Pierce’s consent and found that the male passenger was in possession of marijuana. 220. Although the officers did not find any marijuana in Ms. Pierce’s possession, they arrested her for marijuana possession and took her to the St. Ann Jail. Officers at the St. Ann Jail informed Ms. Pierce that she owed a cash bond of more than $1,000. There was no bail hearing. Ms. Pierce was unable to afford to pay this bond amount, and thus was unable to secure her release. 221. The officers also informed Ms. Pierce that she had warrants for traffic-related offenses in St. Ann, Jennings, Hazelwood, University City, Pagedale, and Breckenridge Hills. 222. The St. Ann Jail held Ms. Pierce for three weeks. Each week, officers of the St. Ann Jail took Ms. Pierce to appear before a St. Ann Municipal Court judge. Each time, Ms. Pierce explained that she was innocent of the marijuana charge and pleaded for her release. Each time, the municipal court judge denied these pleas and sent her back to the St. Ann Jail. 223. The conditions at the St. Ann Jail were overcrowded and unsanitary. Although there were only eight beds per cell, roughly 20 women were assigned to each cell. Women who were ill and experiencing drug withdrawals⎯the symptoms of which included vomiting,
44 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 45 of 79 PageID #: 45
flatulence, nausea, and disorientation, among many other things⎯were placed in the same cells, which exacerbated the unsanitary conditions.
224. Inmates at the St. Ann Jail were not allowed to shower until they had been at the jail for a week. Further, there were no trashcans in the cells, so inmates regularly piled their trash in the corner. In addition to being unsanitary, these conditions created a pungent, unpleasant odor in the jail.
225. The officers at the St. Ann Jail refused to allow Ms. Pierce to use the phone. As a result, she lost her job and her house. In addition, Ms. Pierce’s son missed approximately four weeks of school and was held back a grade because no one was able to take him to school besides his mother. Further, Ms. Pierce almost lost custody of her son when one of his teachers called the Child & Family Services Agency when he abruptly stopped coming to school. Because Ms. Pierce could not use the phone, she was unable to call the school to explain to them what was happening.
226. After three weeks, the St. Ann Jail finally released Ms. Pierce. St. Ann subsequently dropped the charges against Ms. Pierce for possession of marijuana.
227. After the St. Ann Jail “released” Ms. Pierce, officers immediately transferred her to the Jennings Jail. The Jennings Jail held Ms. Pierce for three days in equally unsanitary conditions.
228. At the end of three days, Ms. Pierce paid $100 to secure her “release” from Jennings. However, Jennings then transferred Ms. Pierce to the Hazelwood Jail. Hazelwood detained Ms. Pierce for 12 hours. Ms. Pierce paid $200 to secure her “release” from Hazelwood. However, Hazelwood then transferred Ms. Pierce to the University City Jail, which held Ms.
45 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 46 of 79 PageID #: 46
Pierce for 12 hours before transferring her to the Pagedale Jail. Pagedale held Ms. Pierce for 12 hours before finally releasing her.
229. Each of these incarcerations were in connection with “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” warrants stemming from unpaid fines for traffic and other minor municipal violations. On no occasion did any of the jails or jail officers inquire into Ms. Pierce’s ability to pay, nor did they hold a bail hearing, provide her an attorney, or offer alternatives to the fine.
vi. Brittany Ellis 230. Brittany Ellis is a 26 year-old African-American woman. 231. Ms. Ellis is currently employed as a cook in the Lake St. Charles Retirement Home. 232. In July 2015, at approximately 9:30 p.m., Ms. Ellis was driving home from her job at the Family Dollar in her mother’s truck. 233. Officers of the St. Ann Police Department stopped Ms. Ellis. The officers informed Ms. Ellis that they were pulling her over because her license plate information did not match the truck she was driving. She tried to explain that she was driving her mother’s truck, but to no avail. 234. The officers arrested Ms. Ellis and had the truck she was driving towed. Ms. Ellis and her mother did not have the $500 required to release the truck from the towing company. As a result, Ms. Ellis’ mother lost the truck permanently. 235. The officers took Ms. Ellis to the St. Ann Jail. The St. Ann Jail held Ms. Ellis for approximately eight days. During that time, no St. Ann official informed Ms. Ellis of her bond amount (if any), the reason for her detention, or for how long she would be held.
46 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 47 of 79 PageID #: 47
236. The St. Ann Jail mistreated Ms. Ellis. Officers took Ms. Ellis’ glasses and refused to return them to her, even though she explained that she is legally blind.
237. Ms. Ellis was menstruating during the course of her incarceration at St. Ann. When she asked for sanitary napkins and/or tampons, a St. Ann correctional officer threw a sanitary napkin and tampons at her. Further, officers did not give her the privacy to go to the bathroom to handle her menstruation. As a result, Ms. Ellis was forced to change her pads in her cell in front of other inmates and correctional officers.
238. After eight days, the St. Ann Jail finally “released” Ms. Ellis and immediately transferred her to the St. Louis County Justice Center on a Hazelwood warrant for traffic-related offenses.
239. The St. Louis County Justice Center held Ms. Ellis for 12 days. During that time, officers at the Justice Center subjected Ms. Ellis to an extremely invasive search, forcing her to undress in front of a police officer who told her that she had “big breasts.” The officers also forced Ms. Ellis to spread her buttocks for the search, even though Ms. Ellis was in jail for a nonviolent, traffic-related offense.
240. After 12 days, the St. Louis County Justice Center “release” Ms. Ellis and immediately transferred her to the Ferguson Jail. The Ferguson Jail held Ms. Ellis for two days. During this time, officers at the Ferguson Jail did not inform her of the bond amount, ultimately releasing her and giving her a court date to appear in Ferguson Municipal Court.
241. In total, Ms. Ellis was incarcerated for 22 straight days for her inability to pay fines for traffic-related offenses. Because she was detained for so long, Ms. Ellis was terminated from her job at the Family Dollar (the store informed her that they were unable to hold her position for longer than a week).
47 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 48 of 79 PageID #: 48
242. Currently, Ms. Ellis has multiple traffic-related tickets assessed against her. In total, she owes $2,551 to six different municipalities in unpaid fines, court costs, surcharges, and interest.
243. Ms. Ellis is on payment plans for each of these municipalities. However, each plan requires monthly payments ranging from $50 to $100 per month. Ms. Ellis cannot afford to make these monthly payments. She works as a cook at the Lake St. Charles Retirement Home and receives $680 in income every two weeks. After paying her rent, utilities, car note, car insurance, and cell phone bill, she cannot afford to make all of her monthly payments, which total $300 or more a month.
244. Further, the grip of the municipal court system has stymied Ms. Ellis’ efforts to increase her income. Ms. Ellis recently applied for a job as an overnight cleaner at the Hollywood Casino. However, the Hollywood Casino will not hire Ms. Ellis because she has open arrest warrants for “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear.” Thus, Defendant’s unlawful revenue-generation scheme not only has confiscated Ms. Ellis’ liberty and any spare money she is able to scrounge together, it also has impeded her ability to get a higher paying job that might allow her to finally get out of the Defendant Municipalities’ debt.
vii. Keilee Fant 245. Keilee Fant is a 37-year-old African-American mother of nine who has been working as a Certified Nurse’s Assistant for twenty (20) years. 246. The Defendant Municipalities have jailed Ms. Fant more than seven (7) times in the past twenty (20) years for traffic tickets. She has served time in jails due to municipal charges from Velda City, Beverly Hills, Berkeley, Ferguson, Jennings, and Maryland Heights, among others.
48 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 49 of 79 PageID #: 49
247. Every time Ms. Fant was pulled over she was issued multiple citations in a single stop. This process repeated itself as she traveled through the various municipalities of the St. Louis region to the point where it became nearly impossible to pay all the fines.
248. Ms. Fant was the subject of numerous warrants for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” in municipal court in response to a ticket. Often, her absence was involuntary, caused by scheduling conflicts between the different municipalities. Ms. Fant had to choose which court appearance to attend, resulting in a warrant for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” at the others. In some instances, did not appear because of the fear spawned by Defendants’ tactics. She knew that many municipalities did not accept partial payment. Therefore, when Ms. Fant could not pay a ticket in full, she was afraid that she would be arrested if she appeared. And of course, she did not have a lawyer to advise her.
249. On one occasion, the day after Ms. Fant’s father passed away, a Berkeley officer and a Ferguson officer arrested her from her mother’s home in Berkeley, Missouri. Ms. Fant pleaded with the officers to allow her to make funeral arrangements. They refused. Instead, they arrested her and took her to the Ferguson jail. Her bond was set at $4,300. Ms. Fant’s mother could only scare up $4,200, which she attempted to pay the Ferguson authorities so that Ms. Fant could attend her father’s funeral. They rejected the offer. She missed her father’s funeral because she could not pay the full amount of the bond Ferguson arbitrarily set.
250. The official callousness and violations of Ms. Fant’s rights did not end there. She spent fifty eight (58) days in the Ferguson jail. The guards would not allow her to shower nor did the jail provide any hygiene products. Later, when she was transferred to the Florissant jail, officers harassed Ms. Fant about how she smelled.
49 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 50 of 79 PageID #: 50
251. In 2008, Ms. Fant was arrested after a traffic stop in Jennings that revealed a warrant for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear.” Jennings held Ms. Fant in jail for a week, then transferred her to Ferguson. Ferguson finally transferred her to Berkeley, where she remained for an additional two weeks. She received no credit for time served.
252. In 2012, Ms. Fant was jailed in Pine Lawn for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear.” The Pine Lawn Jail held Ms. Fant with other women in a room the size of a parking lot. The jail provided her a cup to get water from a spout directly above the toilet. The guards ignored the women, only acknowledging them if they asked for a phone to call someone about their bond. Several times, the guards left the women completely unsupervised in the room with a padlocked latch, locking the women in with no way out in case of an emergency.
253. Ms. Fant eventually paid her $400 bail and was released. 254. In 2013, Ms. Fant was driving with her children in the car when a police officer pulled her over in Bellefontaine Neighbors. When the officer ran her name he discovered that she had active warrants in St. Louis County. 255. Ms. Fant was taken to jail in Jennings. She paid a $200 bond for a warrant in Jennings, but the jail did not release her. Instead, Jennings transferred her into Velda City’s custody, still in the Jennings jail. When Ms. Fant asked the guards regarding her continued imprisonment, they replied that she was Velda City’s prisoner and they did not know anything. 256. Ms. Fant was held for Velda City for 48 hours. Still, Jennings did not release her, but instead transferred her into the custody of Bellefontaine. She paid a $100 bond and was transferred to Clayton, which held her for Normandy, until Maryland Heights picked her up and held her for an additional 72 hours before finally releasing her on recognizance. Ms. Fant was
50 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 51 of 79 PageID #: 51
informed that she would be assigned a court date, but a court date was never scheduled, leaving her in a perpetual warrant status.
viii. Meredith Walker 257. Meredith Walker is a 47-year-old African-American mother of two living in Florissant, Missouri. 258. In the last five years, Ms. Walker has been jailed on at least ten occasions by St. Louis municipalities for unpaid fines from traffic tickets and other minor municipal violations; she has paid over $15,000 in fees, court costs, and bond forfeitures, making her unable to provide for herself and her children; and she has lost her license—and consequently, her ability to find employment—because of her inability to afford to pay the fines. 259. Ms. Walker’s traffic tickets continue to plague her to this day, even though she has not been cited for a moving violation in over fifteen years. 260. At one point, Ms. Walker had warrants out for her arrest in eleven different municipalities, all of which stemmed from unpaid traffic tickets and charges for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” in connection with these unpaid traffic tickets. 261. On one occasion in the Village of Bel-Nor, officers of the Bel-Nor Police Department issued Ms. Walker eight tickets during a single traffic stop, even though her car was not moving at the time of the stop. 262. In the last five years, Ms. Walker has been jailed in St. Ann (on behalf of Normandy and Velda City), Florissant, Bel Nor, Moline Acres, Ferguson, St. Louis County, St. Louis City, and Pine Lawn. Each time, officers arrested Ms. Walker on warrants for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” that were issued in connection with unpaid traffic tickets that Ms. Walker could not afford to pay.
51 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 52 of 79 PageID #: 52
263. On almost all of these occasions, Ms. Walker experienced the so-called “munishuffle”: she was transferred from one municipal jail to another, paying bonds at each to secure her “release” to the next, or, if she could not afford to pay bond, remaining in jail until jail officials (or the municipality on whose behalf she was held) decided to release her.
264. Ms. Walker has appeared in the Defendants municipal courts on multiple occasions, including the Normandy Municipal Court and the Velda City Municipal Court, among others. Not once has a municipal court judge inquired into her ability to pay, informed her of her right to an attorney, afforded her an attorney, or proposed alternatives to payment of a fine (such as community service).
265. Ms. Walker has tried to pay off her debts, but simply cannot afford to do so. It is well known in the community that showing up at court without full payment will lead to incarceration. As a result, Ms. Walker feared that if she went to court without the money to pay her fine, she would immediately be placed in jail.
266. Ms. Walker has been unsuccessfully trying to pay off approximately $3,000 of fines over the last four years. On multiple occasions, the Defendants’ court clerks have told Ms. Walker that she resolved all her charges, only to discover more charges later. On other occasions, court clerks have failed to properly record payments made by Ms. Walker.
267. Ms. Walker’s inability to extricate herself from this cycle of debt and jailing imposed by the Defendant Municipalities’ municipal court systems has virtually destroyed Ms. Walker’s life.
268. Ms. Walker is unemployed and has been unable to find a new job because of her traffic record and because she does not have a valid license. Many of the positions for which she is otherwise qualified require a valid driver’s license to transport clients.
52 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 53 of 79 PageID #: 53
269. Ms. Walker has been forced to change her appearance, because she discovered that she was stopped by the Defendant Municipalities’ police officers more often when she had dreadlocks in her hair.
270. Ms. Walker does not have a valid driver’s license because she cannot afford to pay off all of her fines, costs, surcharges, and interest. As a result, Ms. Walker is forced to rely on family and friends to drive her to the store or to her son’s basketball games, placing strain on cherished relationships.
271. Ms. Walker has spent many holidays in jail for unpaid traffic tickets, missing time with family and friends.
272. Ms. Walker is unable to travel around the St. Louis area, in part because bus service in North County (where she lives) is unreliable, and in part because she is now terrified of the police.
273. Ms. Walker lost her car, which was impounded by Moline Acres. Ms. Walker was informed at the impound lot that there was no official record of the vehicle being towed, but that she could get it back for $300. She refused to pay the bribe, the vehicle was never returned, and she was never compensated for it.
ix. Ronald Tucker 274. Ronald Tucker is a 51-year-old African-American father of two adult children. 275. Mr. Tucker was laid off from his job at Casey’s Foods in June of 2016, and is currently unemployed. He works independently, doing odd jobs such as installing air conditioning units, repairing cars, and minor construction jobs. 276. In 2014, officers of the Cool Valley Police Department arrested Mr. Tucker for “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear” warrants stemming from unpaid traffic tickets. The
53 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 54 of 79 PageID #: 54
underlying cause of the warrants were tickets for driving without a license and driving without insurance, dating as far back as 2005.
277. Prior to this arrest, Cool Valley had assessed Mr. Tucker $300 in fines and other charges for these traffic tickets, and had placed him on a payment plan that required $50 monthly payments. Mr. Tucker was employed at the time and was able to make the $50 payments until he only had $100 in outstanding fines and charges.
278. In 2012, Mr. Tucker lost his job. At that time, he went to the Cool Valley Municipal Court and attempted to work out a new payment plan with the court clerk. The clerk refused to make adjustments to Mr. Tucker’s payment plan and did not provide him with a court date to speak with the judge. Instead, the clerk insisted that he would need to make his payment on time or Cool Valley would issue a warrant for his arrest.
279. Mr. Tucker did not make his next payment due to his lack of income, and Cool Valley issued an arrest warrant for his failure to pay.
280. When Mr. Tucker was arrested in 2014, officers of the Cool Valley Police Department transported him to the holding facility in the Cool Valley Police Station.
281. The conditions in the Cool Valley holding facility were the worst that Mr. Tucker has ever experienced. The cells in which the officers held him and the other inmates were commonly referred to as the “dog cage.”
282. There were no toilets in the cell, so Mr. Tucker had to call one of the guards if he wished to be escorted to the bathroom. On more than one occasion, the guards would not respond, or would be away from the building for hours at a time, and Mr. Tucker was forced to use the bathroom on the floor of the cell.
54 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 55 of 79 PageID #: 55
283. Cool Valley did not provide Mr. Tucker and his fellow inmates with a toothbrush, toothpaste, soap, clean clothes, towel, or any other basic hygiene products. Cool Valley also failed to provide inmates access to a shower.
284. Cool Valley provided Mr. Tucker with two meals per day, which typically consisted of, ostensibly, old food from McDonalds. Cool Valley officers would place the food on a tray and slip it under the bars and into the cell, which made Mr. Tucker feel that he was being treated like a dog.
285. There were no beds in the jail cells, and officers usually would require Mr. Tucker and his fellow inmates to sleep handcuffed to a bench in the cell. This was made even more uncomfortable by the fact that the jail was extremely cold, and Cool Valley provided inmates with neither blankets nor extra clothes. To this day, Mr. Tucker often wears warm clothes, even when it is hot outside, out of fear that he will be jailed again.
286. Cool Valley held Mr. Tucker for three or four days before taking him to appear before a Cool Valley municipal judge.
287. In court, Mr. Tucker explained to the judge that he could not afford to make the $50 payments because he had lost his job. Mr. Tucker asked the judge to reduce his payments or allow some other type of accommodation. The judge refused, telling Mr. Tucker that he had agreed to the previous payment plan and would have to find a way to make the payments. The judge did not conduct any other inquiry into Mr. Tucker’s ability to pay, nor did he appoint an attorney for Mr. Tucker or offer alternatives to payment of the fine, even though Mr. Tucker explained unequivocally that he could not afford to pay $50 per month.
55 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 56 of 79 PageID #: 56
288. The judge also imposed additional fines and fees for the late payments and for Mr. Tucker’s “failure to appear,” and told Mr. Tucker that he now owed a total of $385. Cool Valley released Mr. Tucker from custody and gave him a new payment date.
289. Once again, Mr. Tucker was unable to make the monthly payments due to his lack of income, and Cool Valley issued another warrant for his arrest.
290. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Tucker was able to secure legal representation through ArchCity Defenders. Cool Valley subsequently recalled the warrant, but Mr. Tucker continues to owe hundreds of dollars to the city in fines and fees.
x. Shilita Thomas 291. Shilita Thomas is a 29-year-old African-American single mother of one child. Ms. Thomas has been a Certified Nurse’s Assistant (CNA) for five years and has been employed at Cooperative Home Health Agency for the past one and a half years. 292. In 2012, officers of the Ferguson Police Department were dispatched to Ms. Thomas’ home to respond to a domestic dispute. The officers ran Ms. Thomas’ name and discovered that she had outstanding warrants for failure to appear in connection with unpaid traffic tickets in several municipalities. 293. Ms. Thomas was arrested and taken to jail in Ferguson and told that she could “bond out” if she posted a $300 bond. Ms. Thomas could not afford to pay the bond herself, so she enlisted the help of her family to raise the money. 294. However, Ms. Thomas was not released upon her family posting her bond; instead, she started a long series of transfers between municipalities on various outstanding warrants. She was first transferred to Berkeley, where Berkeley correctional officers demanded that she pay $725 in bond and placed a hold her driver’s license. Then she was transferred to
56 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 57 of 79 PageID #: 57
Pine Lawn, where Pine Lawn correctional officers demanded another $300 to $400 and threatened to increase the bond amount “if they decided to.” She was then transferred to Jennings, where she was held on behalf of Dellwood and was required to pay another $150 to $200 bond.
295. Even after enduring all of this, she was not released. Instead, Ms. Thomas continued to be held in the Jennings Jail, now on behalf of Velda City for failure to appear charges stemming from unpaid traffic tickets. The Jennings correctional officers did not tell Ms. Thomas her bond amount. Ms. Thomas was finally “released” when her sister was able to pay a $100 bond. However, Ms. Thomas was not actually released from custody. Instead, she was transferred yet again to St. Louis County, where she was released without paying any bond.
296. Ms. Thomas never had the ability to post the numerous bonds required of her. Indeed, neither did her family, who was forced to resort to pawning their personal belongings and taking out title loans to afford the approximately $1,725 that she was forced to pay to secure her release from custody for unpaid traffic tickets. At no point did any municipality inquire into her ability to pay or offer any reasonable alternative to payment.
297. All told, Ms. Thomas was held in jail for approximately four (4) days at the various municipalities. She received one shower. She was often forced to sleep on the floor of a dirty, overcrowded cell with inadequate—or altogether absent—blankets to stave off the cold. She was served old, stale food.
298. Ms. Thomas was never brought before a judge during her approximately four-day detention at the various municipalities, nor was she offered, let alone informed of, her right to a lawyer.
57 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 58 of 79 PageID #: 58
299. To this day, Ms. Thomas’ child remembers witnessing and asks Ms. Thomas about the events of her mother’s arrest, even though she was only three years old at the time the events occurred.
xi. Mawoussime Adoboe 300. Mawoussime Adoboe is a 33-year-old mother of two children. Ms. Adoboe has been unemployed since 2012 and relies on welfare and social security to support herself. 301. On April 15, 2015, Ms. Adoboe was involved in a car accident. The police arrived at the scene of the car accident and conducted a field sobriety test, which police claimed Ms. Adoboe failed. The police officer cursed at her, called her a “bitch,” and said, “You know I don’t like you.” The St. John police arrested Ms. Adoboe for driving while intoxicated and took her to the St. John police station. The arresting police officer told other officers at the jail “not to give her a chance.” 302. The arresting police officer then took Ms. Adoboe to SSM Health DePaul Hospital - St. Louis, where she was administered a shot, although she did not know what it was for. She was also given a prescription for antibiotics, which the police officer filled before taking Ms. Adoboe to the St. Ann Jail on behalf of St. John. 303. Ms. Adoboe was held at the St. Ann Jail for eight days on $1,500 bond. Ms. Adoboe could not afford to pay the $1,500 bond amount, and therefore was not able to secure her release. 304. After several days, Ms. Adoboe’s family and friends were able to pool their financial resources to come up with the $1,500 for bond. However, when the father of Ms. Adoboe’s daughter attempted to post bond, St. Ann refused the payment without providing a reason.
58 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 59 of 79 PageID #: 59
305. Ms. Adoboe was never brought before a judge during her eight-day detention at the St. Ann jail, nor was she informed of her right to, or offered, a lawyer.
306. Defendant St. Ann’s jail refused to give Ms. Adoboe her medication for her serious chronic medical conditions.
307. The conditions in St. Ann Jail were filthy. Ms. Adoboe and other inmates requested supplies to clean their living space, but the guards refused. The cell in which Ms. Adoboe lived was designed to accommodate six people, but at times up to fifteen people were living in the cell. When there were more people than beds, inmates were forced to sleep on the floor.
308. Ms. Adoboe was allowed to shower only once every three days in a bathroom in filthy conditions.
309. St. Ann Jail Guards tossed cold food and inedible food onto the floor for the inmates to eat.
310. St. Ann Jail Guards were rude to inmates and indifferent to their needs, and called Ms. Adoboe “crazy” and an “African child” on multiple occasions.
311. One of Ms. Adoboe’s relatives attempted to come to the St. Ann Jail to visit her, but the guards never informed her and she was not allowed to meet with her relative.
312. Guards at the St. Ann Jail limited inmates’ use of phones. For example, if Ms. Adoboe placed a call and the person did not answer the first time, she was not allowed to call them back. The guards also limited the content of inmates’ phone calls, not allowing Ms. Adoboe to give any in-depth explanations to people on the phone.
313. After her “release” from the St. Ann Jail, Ms. Adoboe was transferred to the St. Charles Jail in connection with unpaid traffic tickets and “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear”
59 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 60 of 79 PageID #: 60
charges in St. Charles. Ms. Adoboe was detained in the St. Charles Jail for six days, at which point she was able to post $250 bond to secure her release.
314. Ms. Adoboe’s detention had significant collateral consequences in addition to the suffering Ms. Adoboe endured in St. Ann Jail. For example, while she was incarcerated, Ms. Adoboe’s children were shifted from one person’s care to another on three different occasions.
315. On at least one other occasion, Ms. Adoboe was detained in the St. Ann Jail for a speeding ticket in St. Ann. Ms. Adoboe was unable to afford the $500 bond and therefore was forced to spend a night in the St. Ann Jail.
xii. James Redmond III 316. James Redmond III is a 65-year-old African-American man. 317. In March of 2013, Mr. Redmond was pulled over by Wellston Police for running a stop sign. When officers ran his name and discovered that his license had been suspended, Mr. Redmond was arrested and transported to the Wellston jail. 318. Wellston officers told Mr. Redmond that he was being held on a $250 bond. Mr. Redmond, who had no income and was living in shelters at the time, told Wellston officers that he did not have the money. The officers responded that he would have to call someone to get the money. 319. Mr. Redmond remained in the Wellston jail overnight until his stepfather was able to come and bond him out. His stepfather had to take the $250 out of his own rent money. Wellston officers released Mr. Redmond with a court date. 320. When Mr. Redmond appeared at the court date, the Wellston municipal judge assessed him $500 in fines for driving while suspended and running a stop sign. Mr. Redmond told the judge that he did not have any income and therefore had no way to pay the fines. The
60 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 61 of 79 PageID #: 61
judge stated that this “did not make any difference” and put Mr. Redmond on a payment plan with $100 payments.
321. Mr. Redmond could not afford to make a payment due to his lack of income and Wellston issued another warrant for his arrest.
322. This warrant remained active for more than a year before Mr. Redmond was able to secure legal representation through ArchCity Defenders. When ArchCity Defenders began representing Mr. Redmond, he had ten (10) active warrants in seven (7) municipalities throughout St. Louis County, all due to his inability to pay fines and fees stemming from minor traffic offenses.
xiii. Veronica Murphy 323. Veronica Murphy is a 31-year-old single African-American mother of two young children living in St. Louis, Missouri. 324. Ms. Murphy single-handedly supports her two minor children on a very limited income. 325. Ms. Murphy has been jailed in the St. Ann Jail “so many times [she] can’t remember” in connection with warrants issued by Bel-Ridge, Normandy, and St. Ann, among others. The warrants issued by Bel-Ridge initially stemmed from minor traffic infractions issued prior to 2009. As of this filing, Defendant St. Ann continues to refuse to recall its own warrant against Ms. Murphy for minor alleged municipal infractions until fines are “paid in full.” 326. In April 2009, Ms. Murphy departed the University of Missouri-St. Louis campus after a college class to pick up her son—who was five years old at the time—at his school in Normandy, Missouri. She never arrived at the school because officers of the Normandy Police Department stopped Ms. Murphy just one block away.
61 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 62 of 79 PageID #: 62
327. The Normandy Police informed Ms. Murphy that they stopped her pursuant to an alleged warrant from the State of Texas. The Normandy Police arrested Ms. Murphy and towed her vehicle to an impound lot.
328. The two young Murphy children—ages three and five at the time—sat at their schools awaiting their mother until the schools were able to contact members of Ms. Murphy’s family to care for them.
329. The Normandy Police took Ms. Murphy to their precinct, fingerprinted and booked her, and notified Texas of her arrest. The State of Texas informed the Normandy Police that Ms. Murphy was not wanted for extradition.
330. Instead of releasing Ms. Murphy, Normandy Police checked their computer system and determined Ms. Murphy had an outstanding warrant from Bel-Ridge. The Normandy Police then transported Ms. Murphy to the St. Ann Jail.
331. At the St. Ann Jail, Ms. Murphy endured what she now describes as “the worst memories of [her] life” in conditions most inhumane: St. Ann officials (1) forced Ms. Murphy to wear an orange jumpsuit “like [she] was in prison”; and (2) provided inadequate food sometimes consisting of only a honey bun and a packaged pot pie for an entire day—“all because [she is] a single mom who can’t pay a traffic ticket,” as Ms. Murphy attests.
332. Ms. Murphy was held in St. Ann Jail for two weeks. 333. During this time period (which included her birthday), the Murphy children were left motherless while Defendant St. Ann jailed Ms. Murphy on behalf of Bel-Ridge simply because she could not afford to pay the bond amount set by Bel-Ridge, which, on information and belief, exceeded $500.
62 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 63 of 79 PageID #: 63
334. Once released from St. Ann Jail, Ms. Murphy could not afford to pay to retrieve her vehicle from impound; in fact, Ms. Murphy was never able to afford the impound fees to retrieve her car, and she ultimately lost the 1999 Chevy Cavalier which she once owned outright.
335. Since her initial two-week incarceration in 2009, Defendants have repeatedly arrested Ms. Murphy based on her inability to pay fines and alleged “Failure to Appear” charges, including a most recent incarceration on Bel-Ridge’s warrant in May 2014.
336. Despite obtaining legal representation from ArchCity Defenders to address her myriad municipal charges, Ms. Murphy still faces imminent arrest in one or more of the Defendant Municipalities as of the filing of this Complaint.
337. Specifically, in April 2016, St. Ann issued a form recommendation sheet to notify Ms. Murphy that her fines total as much as $620.00 and—using a literal rubber stamp—that “WARRANT WILL REMAIN ACTIVE UNTIL PAID IN FULL.”
338. Then, in June 2016, when ArchCity Defenders requested that St. Ann recall the arrest warrant, St. Ann denied the recall request.
339. Because Ms. Murphy cannot foreseeably afford to pay off St. Ann, this warrant will remain active in perpetuity while Ms. Murphy continues to live in fear of the next time she is pulled over by police in the St. Louis region. F. Class Allegations
340. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, for the purpose of asserting the claims alleged in this Complaint on a common basis.
341. A class action is a superior means, and the only practicable means, by which Plaintiffs and unknown Class members can challenge the Defendants’ unlawful debt-collection scheme.
63 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 64 of 79 PageID #: 64
342. This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a Class action pursuant to Rule 23(a)(1)-(4), Rule 23(b)(2), and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
343. This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of those provisions.
344. Plaintiffs propose two Classes: a Declaratory and Injunctive Class and a Damages Class.
345. The Declaratory and Injunctive Class is defined as: All persons who currently owe or who will incur debts to the Defendants from fines, fees, costs, or surcharges arising from cases in the Defendants’ courts.
346. The Damages Class is defined as: All persons who, from August 9, 2011, until the present, were held in jail by or on behalf of one or more of the Defendants because of the persons’ non-payment of a monetary sum required by one or more of the Defendants as a result of the individuals’ inability to pay.
1. Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) 347. Over the past five years, thousands of people have owed and currently owe the Defendants money from old traffic tickets and other minor municipal offenses. Pursuant to Defendants’ policies and practices, Defendants have placed thousands of people, who have indicated that they are too poor to pay their debts in total, on payment plans that are arbitrary, exorbitant, and inconsistent with the debtors’ ability to pay. All of these people are currently being threatened with arrest and jailing if they do not make the payments in the amount or frequency purportedly required by the Defendants. 348. The Defendants have kept hundreds of people in their jails for non-payment in each of the past five years. The Defendants retain, and are required by law to retain, records of
64 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 65 of 79 PageID #: 65
these instances. 349. The Defendants followed and follow materially the same debt-collection policies,
practices, and procedures to accomplish the jailing of the Class members. For example, pursuant to the Defendants’ policies and practices, those kept in jail by the Defendants for non-payment did not receive meaningful inquiries into their ability to pay as required by federal and Missouri law. Pursuant to Defendants’ policies, Defendants made no determinations of indigence, ability to pay hearings, or evaluations of alternatives to incarceration, and the Defendants provided none of the relevant state and federal protections for debtors. Nor were those jailed by the Defendants provided adequate counsel to represent them.
350. Those who still owe the Defendants debt payments or who will incur such debts will be subjected to the same ongoing policies and practices absent the relief sought in this Complaint.
2. Commonality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). 351. The relief sought is common to all members of the Injunctive and Damages Classes, and common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Classes. The Plaintiffs seek relief concerning whether the Defendants’ policies, practices, and procedures violated their rights and relief mandating the Defendants to change their policies, practices, and procedures so that the Plaintiffs’ rights will be protected in the future. 352. Among the most important, but not the only, common questions of fact are:
a. Whether the Defendants have a policy and practice of keeping people in their jails who owe money on old judgments unless and until they can pay a monetary sum;
b. Whether the Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to conduct meaningful inquiries into the ability of a person to pay before jailing the person for non-payment;
65 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 66 of 79 PageID #: 66
c. Whether the Defendants provide notice to debtors that their ability to pay will be a relevant issue at the proceedings at which they are jailed or kept in jail and whether the Defendants make findings concerning ability to pay and alternatives to incarceration;
d. Whether the Defendants provide adequate legal representation to those jailed for unpaid debts in proceedings that result in their incarceration;
e. Whether Defendants’ employees and agents have a policy and practice of threatening debtors and families of debtors with incarceration for unpaid debts without informing them of their rights;
f. Whether the Defendants have a policy and practice of issuing and executing warrants for the arrest of debtors despite lacking probable cause that they have committed any offense and without any notice or opportunity to be heard concerning their ability to pay or the validity of the debt;
g. Whether the Defendants’ above-described policies and practices are part of a common plan or scheme between and among the Defendant Municipalities;
h. Whether that common scheme or plan seeks to extort funds from poor residents of the St. Louis area by ensnaring them in an escalating spiral of indebtedness and imprisonment; and
i. Whether Defendants’ policies and practices discriminate on the basis of race or other impermissible factors.
353. Among the most important common question of law are:
a. Whether keeping people in jail solely because they cannot afford to make a monetary payment is lawful;
b. Whether people are entitled to a meaningful inquiry into their ability to pay before being jailed by the Defendants for nonpayment of debts;
c. Whether people who cannot afford to pay the Defendants are entitled to the consideration of alternatives to incarceration before being jailed for non-payment of debts;
d. Whether people are entitled to adequate legal representation in debt-collection proceedings initiated and litigated by Defendants
66 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 67 of 79 PageID #: 67
prosecutors that result in their incarceration if they cannot afford an attorney; e. Whether the Defendants may jail, threaten to jail, and use other harsh debt-collection measures (such as ordering payment of significant portions of a person’s public assistance benefits) against debtors who cannot afford immediately to pay the Defendants in full; f. Whether the Defendants may arrest people based solely on their non-payment without any probable cause that they have committed any willful conduct or other offense and without notice and an opportunity to be heard concerning legal predicates for a valid detention, such as their ability to pay and the validity of the debt. 354. These common legal and factual questions arise from one central scheme and set of policies and practices: the Defendants’ enormously profitable traffic and ordinance debt collection system. The Defendants operate this scheme openly and in materially the same manner every day, and all of the ancillary factual questions about how that scheme operates are common to all members of the Classes, as well as the resulting legal questions about whether that scheme is unlawful. The material components of the scheme do not vary from Class member to Class member, and the resolution of these legal and factual issues will determine whether all of the members of the class are entitled to the constitutional relief that they seek. 3. Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). 355. The named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Classes and Subclasses respectively, and they have the same interests in this case as all other members of the Classes that they represent. Each of them suffered injuries from the failure of the Defendants to comply with the basic constitutional provisions detailed below. The answer to whether the Defendants’ scheme of policies and practices is unconstitutional will determine the claims of the named Plaintiffs and every other Class member. 356. If the named Plaintiffs succeed in their claims that the Defendants’ policies and
67 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 68 of 79 PageID #: 68
practices concerning debt collection for fines, fees, costs, and surcharges violate the law in the
ways alleged in each claim of the Complaint, then that ruling will likewise benefit every other
member of the Injunctive and Damages Classes.
4. Adequacy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).
357. The named Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Classes because they are
members of the Classes and because their interests coincide with, and are not antagonistic to,
those of the Classes. There are no known conflicts of interest among Class members, all of
whom have a similar interest in vindicating the constitutional rights to which they are entitled.
358. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Arnold & Porter LLP, a firm with
experience litigating complex civil rights matters in federal court and extensive knowledge of
both the details of the Defendants’ scheme and the relevant constitutional and statutory law.
Plaintiffs are also represented by attorneys from ArchCity Defenders, who have extensive
experience with the functioning of the entire municipal court system through their representation of numerous impoverished people in the St. Louis area.19
19 ArchCity Defenders is a non-profit public interest law firm based in Saint Louis. It has represented the poor and homeless in cases involving the Municipal Defendants for the past five years and is an expert on the ways in which the Defendants’ illegal practices and policies make and keep people poor. ArchCity Defenders has recently brought class actions in the Eastern District of Missouri restricting the use of chemical munitions on peaceful protesters, is cocounsel on two federal class actions alleging the operation of debtors’ prisons in Ferguson and Jennings, Missouri, two additional class actions ending cash bail, and an additional series of state class action suits alleging the imposition of illegal fees and fines in various municipal courts in the St. Louis County region. See Templeton v. Dotson, 4:14-cv-01019; Jenkins et al. v. City of Jennings, 15-cv-252-CEJ (E.D. Mo. 2015); Fant et al. v. City of Ferguson, 15-cv-253-AGF (E.D. Mo. 2015); Powell v. City of St. Ann 4:15-cv-840 (E.D. Mo. 2015); Pierce v. City of Velda City, 4:15-CV-570 (E.D. Mo. 2015); White v. City of Pine Lawn, 14SL-CC04194 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Dec. 2014); Pruitt v. City of Wellston, 14SL-CC04192 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Dec. 2014); Lampkin v. City of Jennings, 14SL-CC04207 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Dec. 2014); Wann v. City of St. Louis, 1422-CC10272 (St. Louis City Cir. Ct., Dec. 2014); Reed v. City of Ferguson, 14SL-CC04195 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Dec. 2014); Eldridge v. City of St. John, 15SL-00456 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Feb. 2015); Watkins v. City of Florissant, 16SL-CC00165 (St. Louis Co. Cir.
68 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 69 of 79 PageID #: 69
359. The efforts of Plaintiffs’ counsel have so far included extensive investigation over a period of months, including numerous interviews with witnesses, Defendants’ employees, Defendants’ jail inmates, families, attorneys practicing in the Defendants’ Municipal Courts, community members, statewide experts in the functioning of Missouri municipal courts, and national experts in constitutional law, debt collection, bankruptcy law, criminal law, and forced labor.
360. Counsel have also observed numerous courtroom hearings in the Defendant Municipalities and in other municipalities across the region in order to compile a detailed understanding of state law and practices as they relate to federal constitutional requirements. Counsel have studied the way that these systems function in other cities in order to investigate the wide array of options in practice for municipalities.
361. As a result, counsel have devoted enormous time and resources to becoming intimately familiar with the Defendants’ scheme and with all of the relevant state and federal laws and procedures that can and should govern it. Counsel also have developed relationships with many of the individuals and families most victimized by the Defendants’ practices.
362. The interests of the members of the Class will be fairly and adequately protected by the Plaintiffs and their attorneys.
5. Rule 23(b)(2) 363. Class action status is appropriate because the Defendants, through the policies, practices, and procedures that make up their traffic and ordinance debt-collection scheme, have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Declaratory and Injunctive
Ct., Jan. 2016). ArchCity Defenders also published an extensive report detailing these practices and policies in the cities of Bel-Ridge, Ferguson, and Florissant in August of 2014. The report is available at http://www.archcitydefenders.org.
69 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 70 of 79 PageID #: 70
Classes. 364. A declaration that people in the Defendant Municipalities cannot be held in jail
solely because they cannot afford to make a monetary payment will apply to each Class member. 365. Similarly, a determination that Class members are entitled, as a matter of federal
law, to a meaningful inquiry into their ability to pay and an evaluation of alternatives to incarceration before they are jailed by the Defendants for non-payment will apply to each Class member.
366. The same applies to rulings on the other claims, including: that Class members are entitled to representation by counsel at proceedings initiated and litigated by Defendants’ prosecutors in connection with which they are jailed; that the Defendants cannot imprison Class members for debts; that the Defendants cannot collect debts from Class members in a manner that violates and evades all of the relevant protections for other judgment debtors; and that the Defendants cannot issue and execute arrest warrants for traffic debtors without probable cause that they have committed an offense and without notice or a hearing prior to the deprivation of their liberty.
367. Injunctive relief compelling the Defendants to comply with these constitutional rights will similarly protect each member of the Class from being again subjected to the Defendants’ unlawful policies and practices with respect to the debts that they still owe and protect those who will incur such debts in the future from the same unconstitutional conduct. Therefore, declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a whole is appropriate.
6. Rule 23(b)(3) 368. Class treatment under Rule 23(b)(3) is also appropriate because the common questions of law and fact overwhelmingly predominate in this case. This case turns, for every
70 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 71 of 79 PageID #: 71
Plaintiff, on what the Defendants’ policies and practices are and on whether those policies are lawful.
369. The common questions of law and fact listed above are dispositive questions in the case of every member of the Classes and Subclasses. The question of liability can therefore be determined on a class-wide basis. Class-wide treatment of liability is a far superior method of determining the content and legality of the Defendants’ policies and practices than individual suits by hundreds or thousands of Defendants’ residents. The question of damages will also be driven by class-wide determinations.
370. To the extent that individual damages will vary, they will vary depending in large part on the amount of time that a person was unlawfully jailed. Determining damages for individual Class members can thus typically be handled in a ministerial fashion based on easily verifiable records of the length of unlawful incarceration. If need be, individual hearings on Class-member specific damages based on special circumstances can be held after Class-wide liability is determined—a method far more efficient than the wholesale litigation of hundreds or thousands of individual lawsuits.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I
Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment — Imprisonment For Inability To Pay (Against All Defendants)
371. The preceding paragraphs 1-370 are incorporated herein by reference. 372. The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibit imprisoning a person for failure to pay money owed to the government if that person is indigent and unable to pay.
71 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 72 of 79 PageID #: 72
373. The Municipal Defendants imprisoned and/or threatened to imprison each of the Plaintiffs when they could not afford to pay debts allegedly owed for traffic and other minor offenses without conducting any inquiry into their ability to pay and without conducting any inquiry into alternatives to imprisonment, as required by the United States Constitution. At any moment, a person with financial resources in the Plaintiffs’ positions could have paid a sum of cash and been released from jail.
374. The Municipal Defendants maintained and continue to maintain a policy and practice of (i) imprisoning, or threatening to imprison, people, including Plaintiffs, when they cannot afford to pay the debts allegedly owed from traffic and other minor offenses, and (ii) keeping people, including Plaintiffs, in jail unless and until they are able to pay arbitrarily determined (and constantly shifting) sums of money.
375. The Municipal Defendants actions violated, and continue to violate, Plaintiffs’ rights, and the rights of others similarly situated, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
376. As a direct result of the Defendants’ unlawful practices, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have suffered extensive damages, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, anxiety, anguish, feeling of unjust treatment, fear, and lost earnings.
377. On information and belief, the above-described acts of Defendants were done knowingly, intentionally, maliciously, with evil motive, and with deliberate and callous indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and those similarly situated. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive damages against the Defendants.
COUNT II Violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments—Failure to Provide Adequate Counsel
(Against All Defendants) 378. The preceding paragraphs 1-377 are incorporated herein by reference.
72 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 73 of 79 PageID #: 73
379. The Defendant Municipalities violated Plaintiffs’ rights, and the rights of others similarly situated, to the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, have been and continue to be imprisoned by the Defendant Municipalities in connection with debtcollection proceedings in which those people jailed are not afforded counsel.
380. The Defendant Municipalities’ policy and practice of not providing adequate counsel at hearings in which indigent people are ordered to be imprisoned in the Defendants’ jails for unpaid debts (which are, in turn, based on payment plans arising from traffic and other violations at which the jailed individuals also were unrepresented), violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
381. As a direct result of the Defendants’ unlawful practices, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have suffered extensive damages, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, anxiety, anguish, feeling of unjust treatment, fear, and lost earnings.
382. On information and belief, the above-described acts of Defendants were done knowingly, intentionally, maliciously, with evil motive, and with deliberate and callous indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and those similarly situated. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive damages against the Defendants.
COUNT III Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment—Indefinite and Arbitrary Detention
(Against All Defendants) 383. The preceding paragraphs 1-382 are incorporated herein by reference. 384. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits incarcerating people indefinitely and without adequate procedural
73 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 74 of 79 PageID #: 74
protections. The Municipal Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of jailing the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated without any meaningful legal process through which they can challenge their detention by keeping them confined in the Defendants’ jails unless and until they can make arbitrarily and inconsistently established cash payments, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
385. As a direct result of the Defendants’ unlawful practices, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have suffered extensive damages, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, anxiety, anguish, feeling of unjust treatment, fear, and lost earnings.
386. On information and belief, the above-described acts of Defendants were done knowingly, intentionally, maliciously, with evil motive, and with deliberate and callous indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and those similarly situated. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive damages against the Defendants.
COUNT IV Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments — Issuance of Invalid Warrants
(Against All Defendants) 387. The preceding paragraphs 1-386 are incorporated herein by reference. 388. The Defendants’ policy and practice is to issue and serve arrest warrants against those who have not paid their debt from old judgments in traffic and other minor cases. These warrants are sought, issued, and served without any inquiry into the person’s ability to pay even when the Defendants have prior knowledge that the person is impoverished and unable to pay the debts or possesses other valid defenses. 389. These warrants are regularly sought, issued, and served without any finding of probable cause that the person has committed the elements of any offense. The Defendants
74 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 75 of 79 PageID #: 75
choose to pursue warrants instead of issuing summons even when it has spoken to people on the phone or in person and has the opportunity to notify them to appear in court.
390. The Defendants enforce a policy of allowing wealthy residents or residents who can afford to hire an attorney to remove their warrants but refusing to remove warrant. Moreover, the Defendants’ policy and practice of not presenting arrestees in court or unreasonably delaying presentment for days or weeks for no legitimate reason is unlawful.
391. These practices violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and result in a deprivation of fundamental liberty without adequate due process. Defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
392. As a direct result of the Defendants’ unlawful practices, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have suffered extensive damages, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, anxiety, anguish, feeling of unjust treatment, fear, and lost earnings.
393. On information and belief, the above-described acts of Defendants were done knowingly, intentionally, maliciously, with evil motive, and with deliberate and callous indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and those similarly situated. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive damages against the Defendants.
COUNT V Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment — Threats of Incarceration to Collect Debts
(Against All Defendants) 394. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-393 above. 395. The United States Supreme Court has held that, when a government seeks to recoup costs of prosecution from indigent defendants—for example, the cost of appointed counsel—it may not take advantage of its position to impose unduly restrictive methods of collection solely because the debt is owed to the government and not to a private creditor.
75 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 76 of 79 PageID #: 76
396. By incarcerating the Plaintiffs and threatening to incarcerate them, the Defendants take advantage of their control over the machinery of the penal and police systems to deny debtors the statutory protections that every other debtor may invoke against a private creditor. This coercive policy and practice constitutes invidious discrimination and violates the fundamental principles of equal protection of the laws. Defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
397. As a direct result of the Defendants’ unlawful practices, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have suffered extensive damages, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, anxiety, anguish, feeling of unjust treatment, fear, and lost earnings.
398. On information and belief, the above-described acts of Defendants were done knowingly, intentionally, maliciously, with evil motive, and with deliberate and callous indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and those similarly situated. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive damages against the Defendants.
COUNT VI Conspiracy to Commit Civil Rights Violations (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
(Against All Defendants) 399. The preceding paragraphs 1-398 are incorporated herein by reference. 400. The Defendant Municipalities, through their police departments, municipal court systems, city prosecuting attorneys’ offices, and various other agents, have engaged in a deliberate and coordinated scheme between and amongst the Municipalities that violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, and the constitutional rights of others that are similarly situated. 401. The Defendant Municipalities deliberately coordinated arrests, deprivations of due process, denials of the right to counsel and unlawful detentions that violated the constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated.
76 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 77 of 79 PageID #: 77
402. Each Defendant Municipality knowingly and intentionally acted in furtherance of this scheme, including, but not limited to, by arresting and/or holding individuals on behalf of other Defendant Municipalities, by inducing payment of fines improperly imposed by another Defendant Municipality via strong-arm tactics against individuals in their custody, by enforcing warrants issued by other Defendant Municipalities that the Defendant Municipality knew or should have known was invalid, and by passing information between the Defendant Municipalities in facilitation of these violations.
403. The conspiracy between and among the Defendant Municipalities caused Plaintiffs and those similarly situated to be deprived of their constitutional rights in the manners described in the preceding paragraphs.
404. Defendants are liable for this conspiracy and its harms under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 405. As a direct result of the Defendants’ unlawful practices, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have suffered extensive damages, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, anxiety, anguish, feeling of unjust treatment, fear, and lost earnings. 406. On information and belief, the above-described acts of Defendants were done knowingly, intentionally, maliciously, with evil motive, and with deliberate and callous indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and those similarly situated. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive damages against the Defendants.
77 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 78 of 79 PageID #: 78
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court issue the following relief:
a. Certification of the Declaratory and Injunctive Class and Subclasses and the Damages Class, as defined above;
b. A declaratory judgment that Defendants violated, and continue to violate, Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights by imprisoning them for their inability to pay a debt without conducting any meaningful inquiry into their ability to pay or into any alternatives to incarceration;
c. A declaratory judgment that Defendants violated, and continue to violate, Plaintiffs’ rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments by imprisoning them without appointing adequate counsel at the proceedings that led to their incarceration;
d. A declaratory judgment that Defendants violated, and continue to violate, Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights by holding them indefinitely and arbitrarily in jail independent of any valid legal process;
e. A declaratory judgment that Defendants violated, and continue to violate, Plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by issuing and serving arrest warrants without probable cause to believe that the elements of an offense had been committed, with unreasonable delay prior to presentment, and without providing pre-deprivation of liberty process where such process is easily available to the Defendants;
f. An order and judgment permanently enjoining Defendants from enforcing the above-described unconstitutional policies and practices against Plaintiffs and others similarly situated;
g. A declaratory judgment that the Defendant City violated Plaintiffs’ equal protection rights by imposing harsh debt collection measures not imposed on debtors whose creditors are private entities
h. A judgment compensating the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for the damages that they suffered as a result of the Defendants’ unconstitutional and unlawful conduct; and
i. An order and judgment granting reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 18 U.S.C. § 1595, and any other relief this Court deems just and proper.
78 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/09/16 Page: 79 of 79 PageID #: 79

Dated: August 9, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Thomas B. Harvey__________________ Thomas B. Harvey (MBE #61734MO) Michael-John Voss (MBE #61742MO) Blake A. Strode (MBE #68422MO) Nathaniel Carroll (MBE #67988MO) Edward J. Hall (MBE #0012692IA) Brendan Roediger, Of Counsel (MBE #6287213IL) ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, INC. 1210 Locust Street Saint Louis, MO 63103 Tel: (855) 724-2489 Fax: (314) 925-1307 tharvey@archcitydefenders.org mjvoss@archcitydefenders.org bstrode@archcitydefenders.org ncarroll@archcitydefenders.org ehall@archcitydefenders.org broedige@slu.edu
Robert Weiner (pro hac vice motion to be filed) David B. Bergman (pro hac vice motion to be filed) ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Tel: (202) 942-5000 Fax: (202 942-5999 Robert.Weiner@aporter.com David.Bergman@aporter.com
S. Zachary Fayne (pro hac vice motion to be filed) ARNOLD & PORTER LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 471-3114 Fax: (415) 471-3400 Zachary.Fayne@aporter.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

79 of 79

 
 Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 1 of 79 PageID #: 260

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

)

QUINTON M. THOMAS; ROELIF EARL )

CARTER; BRADLEY JILES; ANGELA )

DAVIS; MEREDITH WALKER;

)

BRITTANY ELLIS; DONYA PIERCE; )

RONALD TUCKER; KEILEE FANT; )

MAWOUSSIME ADOBOE, SHILITA )

THOMAS, JAMES REDMOND III,

)

VERONICA MURPHY,

)

et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CITY OF ST. ANN;

)

CITY OF EDMUNDSON;

)

CITY OF NORMANDY;

)

CITY OF COOL VALLEY;

)

CITY OF VELDA CITY;

)

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS;

)

CITY OF PAGEDALE;

)

CITY OF CALVERTON PARK;

)

CITY OF ST. JOHN;

)

CITY OF BEL-RIDGE;

)

CITY OF WELLSTON

)

CITY OF VELDA VILLAGE HILLS; and )

CITY OF BELLEFONTAINE

)

NEIGHBORS,

)

)

Defendants.

)

___________________________________ )

Case No. 4:16-cv-1302 (Jury Trial Demanded)

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION
1. The Defendant Municipalities, through their police departments, municipal court systems, city prosecuting attorneys’ offices, and jails, have terrorized the named Plaintiffs and

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 2 of 79 PageID #: 261
many thousands of others through a deliberate and coordinated conspiracy established and implemented to fill the Municipalities’ coffers by extorting money from thousands of poor, disproportionately African-American people in the St. Louis region, creating a modern-day police state and debtors’ prison scheme that has no place in American society.
2. The scheme reflects an extraordinary abuse of governmental authority, starting with the over-policing of low income communities of color and the issuance of excessive citations for traffic and other minor municipal code violations, followed by arbitrary fines, penalties, surcharges, and interest charges that pile up like debts to a loan-shark, arrest warrants auto-generated without good cause or even a semblance of due process, and imprisonment— imposed without assistance of counsel—in squalid debtors’ prisons. The Defendants’ unconstitutional revenue-generation scheme disproportionately targets African-American residents, placing jobs at risk, leaving children without supervision, and debasing fundamental human rights, for as long as it takes to strong-arm payment from Plaintiffs and others.
3. Plaintiffs are a group of similarly situated individuals who are victims of the Defendants’ predatory scheme. Each of these human beings was locked in a cage by or on behalf of one or more of the 13 municipalities named as Defendants in this lawsuit (the “Defendant Municipalities”) solely because he or she was unable to afford a cash payment. And each was left to languish in filthy, often overcrowded jail cells because he or she could not afford to pay the jacked-up fines, penalties, and other charges that Defendants assessed. Defendants did not inquire about, much less accommodate, the hardships their extortionate demands placed on
2 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 3 of 79 PageID #: 262
Plaintiffs and their families. Nor did Defendants offer to provide Plaintiffs with counsel who could advise them of their rights or otherwise protect them from Defendants’ predatory scheme.1
4. Defendants’ officials and employees—through their conduct, decisions, training, rules, policies, practices, and procedures—constructed and implemented this unified, conspiratorial scheme for the overriding purpose of raising municipal revenue (and not for any legitimate law enforcement purpose). In 2015 alone, the Defendant Municipalities issued an average of 1.7 arrest warrants per household and one (1) arrest warrant for every adult, mostly for allegedly unpaid debt in connection with tickets supposedly involving traffic violations and other petty offenses.2
5. Defendants gained the coercive leverage to effectuate their scheme by resurrecting a modern analogue of debtors’ prisons—an institution this country rejected as inhumane more than a century ago. That leverage has made Defendants’ scheme increasingly profitable, generating millions of dollars of revenue over the past several years. Defendants’ law enforcement and municipal court practices focus on maximizing revenue, rather than promoting public safety, administering justice, or providing the bare rudiments of due process. Defendants are forcing the poorest and most vulnerable citizens to finance a municipal system that is a tool of injustice and oppression.
1 The architecture of this illegal scheme has been in place for many years. See, e.g., T.E. Lauer, Prolegomenon to Municipal Court Reform in Missouri, 31 Mo. L. Rev. 69, 88 (1966) (“[I]t seems that many citizens of the state are being confined needlessly in our city jails . . . .”); id. at 85 (“[I]t is disgraceful that we do not appoint counsel in our municipal courts to represent indigent persons accused of ordinance violations.”); id. at 90 (“It is clear that many municipalities have at times conceived of their municipal courts in terms of their revenue-raising ability. . . .”). 2 OFFICE OF STATE COURTS ADMIN., MO. JUDICIAL REPORT SUPP.: FISCAL YEAR 2015, Table 95, http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=96438; U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, PROFILING OF GENERAL POPULATION AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS 2010, http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
3 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 4 of 79 PageID #: 263
6. As a result, this scheme has targeted and persecuted people who live in or travel through Defendants’ municipal borders, trapping them for years in a cycle of escalating fees, intractable debt, and imprisonment. In particular, Defendants’ scheme has preyed on the most vulnerable, those living in or near poverty, who are least able to bear, or to avoid, the extortionate costs Defendants have imposed.
7. Thousands of people in the Plaintiffs’ position must divert funds from their disability checks, or sacrifice meager earnings their families desperately need for food, diapers, clothing, rent, and utilities, to pay spiraling court fines, fees, costs, and surcharges. Whether or not valid, a citation for a minor offense—a broken tail light, a lane change without signaling— often generates crippling debts for people like Plaintiffs, resulting in jail time when they cannot afford to pay, deepening their already desperate poverty.
8. The summary imprisonment Defendants impose on people who appear in the Defendants’ municipal courts but who cannot afford to pay the sums of money demanded frightens many away from the courthouse, allowing Defendants to jack up the fines even further and issue arrest warrantsintended to coerce paymentfor “Failure to Pay” and “Failure to Appear.” Month after month, year after year, the cycle repeats itself, ensnaring Plaintiffs and those like them in a system from which it is nearly impossible to extricate themselves.
9. Defendants have abused the legal system to bestow a patina of legitimacy on what is, in reality, extortion. If private parties had created and implemented this scheme, enforced it by threatening and imposing indefinite incarceration, and milked poor families of millions of dollars, the law would punish them as extortionists and racketeers, and the community would take steps to prevent them from exploiting the most vulnerable of its members. These predatory
4 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 5 of 79 PageID #: 264
practices are no more legitimate—and indeed are more outrageous—when state and local government actors perpetrate them under color of law.
10. The treatment of the named Plaintiffs reveals a coordinated, systemic effort by Defendants through both police and municipal court practices, to deprive some of the area’s poorest residents of their rights under the United States Constitution. For years, Defendants have engaged in the same conduct, as a matter of policy and practice, against Plaintiffs and thousands of other impoverished citizens. These citizens’ fundamental constitutional right to liberty, however, does not depend on their income. Defendants have created or revived de facto debtors’ prisons, using them as a tool to cow poor people into financing municipal government. Such flagrant abuse is not consistent with the values this country holds dear, with the rule of law, or with the constitutional guarantee of due process.
11. Importantly, to enable and perpetuate this unconstitutional scheme, Defendant City of St. Ann acts as a veritable warehouse in which the Defendant Municipalities can deposit excess arrestees.
12. On their own, the other 12 Defendant Municipalities each lack the capacity to hold more than a few people at a given time, so they contract or otherwise conspire with St. Ann to arrest a significantly greater number of people for alleged municipal ordinance violations and ship them to St. Ann Jail, where arrestees languish until the Defendant Municipalities can extract enough money from the individuals or their families to satisfy the Municipalities’ demands. Without the availability of St. Ann’s recently-expanded jail, which “sleeps 42, not including a pen for short-timers and a juvenile area,”3 the Defendant Municipalities would not be able to
3 Bogan, Jesse, A Sense of Change in St. Ann, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH (Aug. 5, 2012), http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/a-sense-of-change-in-st-ann/article_c2dd4c0b-45fc552f-8df9-8ec5db29d7cb.html.
5 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 6 of 79 PageID #: 265
incarcerate, or threaten to incarcerate, human beings too poor to pay their debts, and the Defendants’ unlawful scheme would fall apart.
13. Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, and on behalf of those similarly situated, bring this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs seek in this civil action the vindication of their fundamental rights, compensation for the abuse that Defendants have rained down on them, injunctive relief assuring that Defendants will not violate their rights again, and a declaration that the Defendants’ conduct is unlawful.4
NATURE OF THE ACTION 14. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendants jail people who cannot afford to pay money they supposedly owe Defendants for traffic tickets and other minor alleged municipal code violations. Defendants jail people for nonpayment without inquiring whether they can pay, without considering alternatives to imprisonment as required by federal and Missouri law, and without setting bail and/or bond based on the person’s individual circumstances. 15. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendants jail indigent people for these alleged debts without informing them of their right to counsel and without providing counsel for those who cannot afford it. 16. Pursuant to common practice, Defendants arbitrarily and incrementally set and reset the amount of money they require indigent people to pay for release throughout their indefinite detention, sometimes eventually releasing the person if Defendants determine they cannot extort money from him or her.
4 The Plaintiffs make the allegations in this Complaint based on personal knowledge as to matters in which they have had personal involvement, and on information and belief as to all other matters.
6 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 7 of 79 PageID #: 266
17. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendants incarcerate individuals indefinitely, unless and until the person, or the person’s family or friends, can pay sufficient money to satisfy Defendants. The conditions of incarceration are so miserable as to intensify the coercive effect.
18. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendants issue and enforce invalid arrest warrants, threaten alleged debtors with jail if they do not bring cash to court, hold alleged debtors in jail for a week or more without any judicial appearance, and, without due process, set and modify monetary payments necessary for release with no regard for ability to pay or basic fairness. These tactics frighten people away from appearing in court and then punish them for not appearing.
19. Together these policies and practices constitute and result from a common scheme and coordinated effort between and among the Defendants.
20. These policies and practices are further reflected in, and caused by, the Defendants’ (1) failure to establish consistent procedures, effective training, and meaningful supervision to appropriately guide and monitor the actions of law enforcement officers and other agents of Defendants engaged in law enforcement and municipal court activities; (2) failure to establish reliable systems to detect and appropriately discipline and hold accountable municipal officials for misconduct; and (3) prioritizing revenue generation at the expense of the rights of individuals in the Defendant Municipalities and public safety needs.
21. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
22. This is a civil rights action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq., and the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
7 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 8 of 79 PageID #: 267
23. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. PARTIES
24. Plaintiff Quinton M. Thomas is a 28-year-old man. 25. Plaintiff Roelif Earl Carter is a 63-year-old man. 26. Plaintiff Bradley Jiles is a 24-year-old man. 27. Plaintiff Angela Davis is a 44-year-old woman. 28. Plaintiff Meredith Walker is a 47-year-old woman. 29. Plaintiff Brittany Ellis is a 26-year-old woman. 30. Plaintiff Donya Pierce is a 26-year-old woman. 31. Plaintiff Ronald Tucker is a 51-year-old man. 32. Plaintiff Keilee Fant is a 37-year-old woman. 33. Plaintiff Mawoussime Adoboe is a 33-year-old woman. 34. Plaintiff Shilita Thomas is a 29-year-old woman. 35. Plaintiff James Redmond III is a 65-year-old man. 36. Plaintiff Veronica Murphy is a 31-year-old woman. 37. Defendant City of St. Ann is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of St. Ann operates the St. Ann Jail, the St. Ann Police Department, and the St. Ann Municipal Court. 38. Defendant City of Edmundson is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of Edmundson operates the Edmundson Municipal Court and Edmundson Police Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail.
8 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 9 of 79 PageID #: 268
39. Defendant City of Normandy is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of Normandy operates the Normandy Municipal Court and Normandy Policy Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail.
40. Defendant City of Cool Valley is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of Cool Valley operates the Cool Valley Municipal Court and Cool Valley Police Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail.
41. Defendant City of Velda City is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. Velda City operates the Velda City Municipal Court and Velda City Police Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail.
42. Defendant City of Pagedale is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of Pagedale operates the Pagedale Municipal Court and Pagedale Police Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail.
43. Defendant City of St. John is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of St. John operates the St. John Municipal Court and St. John Police Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail.
44. Defendant City of Bel-Ridge is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of Bel-Ridge operates the Bel-Ridge Municipal Court and
9 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 10 of 79 PageID #: 269
Bel-Ridge Police Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail.
45. Defendant City of Beverly Hills is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of Beverly Hills operates the Beverly Hills Municipal Court and Beverly Hills Police Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail.
46. Defendant City of Bellefontaine Neighbors is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of Bellefontaine Neighbors operates the Bellefontaine Neighbors Municipal Court and Bellefontaine Neighbors Police Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail.
47. Defendant City of Calverton Park is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of Calverton Park operates the Calverton Park Municipal Court and Calverton Park Police Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail.
48. Defendant City of Velda Village Hills is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of Velda Village Hills operates the Velda Village Hills Municipal Court and Velda Village Hills Police Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail.
49. Defendant City of Wellston is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of Wellston operates the Wellston Municipal Court and Wellston Police Department, and contracts with the City of St. Ann to imprison individuals in the St. Ann Jail.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
10 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 11 of 79 PageID #: 270
A. Factual Background 50. St. Louis County, Missouri is comprised of 90 municipalities and 81 separate
municipal courts. These municipalities range in population from under 100 people to over 10,000. The populations of the Municipal Defendants range from 574 in Beverly Hills to 13,020 in St. Ann.
51. In 2013, the municipal courts of St. Louis City and County collected $61,152,087 in fines and fees. During that same time, the combined total of court fines and fees collected by Missouri municipal courts was $132,032,351.63. This means that the municipal courts in the St. Louis region accounted for 46% of all fines and fees collected statewide, despite being home to only 22% of Missourians.5
52. There is little to no oversight of the St. Louis region’s municipal courts. A judicial circuit in Missouri contains on average 8.6 municipal court divisions. The St. Louis County judicial circuit contains 81 municipal court divisions. As a result, the presiding judge of St. Louis County’s circuit courts must oversee nearly ten times the number of municipal courts and municipal court judges as an average presiding judge in Missouri.6
53. According to the most recent available budget information, court fines and fees are the largest single source of revenue for St. Ann, Beverly Hills, Cool Valley, Edmundson, Normandy, and Velda Cityamong several other municipalities. Likewise, Bel-Ridge and St. John receive over twenty percent of their revenue from court fines and fees.
54. As addressed below, there is direct correlation between the revenue that a particular municipality raises through fines and fees and the population of black and
5 See Better Together’s Municipal Courts Study, available at http://www.bettertogetherstl.com/studies/public-safety/municipal-courts-report. 6 Id.
11 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 12 of 79 PageID #: 271
impoverished residents living in that municipality. That is, Defendants are funding themselves
on the backs of their black and impoverished residents.
55. The brutal efficiency of Defendants’ improper scheme is reflected in the fact that
only eight of the eighty-one municipal courts in St. Louis County failed to make a profit, when
the cost of operating the municipal court was compared to the revenue collected from court fines
and fees. On average a municipal court in St. Louis County costs $223,149 to operate while
bringing in an average of $711,506 in revenue from fines and fees each year. 56. Several of the Defendant Municipalities are illustrative:7
a. Bel-Ridge gets 24.46% of its general revenue from fines and fees, 83.12% of its population is black and 42.30% are below the poverty line;
b. Beverly Hills gets 26.37% of its general revenue from fines and fees, 92.6% of its population is black and 17.7% are below the poverty line;
c. Cool Valley gets 29.11% of its general revenue from fines and fees, 84.53% of its population is black and 14% are below the poverty line;
d. Edmundson gets 34.86% of its general revenue from fines and fees, 26.38% of its population is black and 19% are below the poverty line;
e. Normandy gets 40.61% of its general revenue from fines and fees, 69.75% of its population is black and 35.4% are below the poverty line;
f. St. Ann gets 37.47% of its general revenue from fines and fees, 22.11% of its population is black and 15.1% are below the poverty line;
g. Velda City gets 21.58% of its general revenue from fines and fees, 95.42% of its population is black and 18.5% are below the poverty line.
7 Sources: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=68844; http://www.bettertogetherstl.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/10/BT-Municipal-Courts-Report-Appendix.pdf.
12 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 13 of 79 PageID #: 272
57. Based on data reported by police departments to the Missouri Attorney General,
Black residents in the Defendant Municipalities are much more likely to be searched and/or
arrested as a result of a vehicle stop.8 For example, in 2015:
a. In St. Ann, out of 8,140 total vehicle stops, 5.87% of stops of white individuals resulted in a search, whereas 15.34% of stops of black individuals resulted in a search. While contraband is more likely to be discovered during stops involving both white drivers and black drivers, black drivers are nearly three times more likely to be arrested than white drivers as a result;
b. In Normandy, out of 4,102 total vehicle stops, 2.44% of stops of white individuals resulted in a search, whereas 6.45% of stops of black individuals resulted in a search. Similarly, 1.15% of stops of white individuals resulted in an arrest, whereas 2.74% of stops of black individuals resulted in an arrest;
c. In Edmundson, out of 1,267 total vehicle stops, 1.59% of stops of white individuals resulted in a search, whereas 5.73% of stops of black individuals resulted in a search. Similarly, 1.43% of stops of white individuals resulted in an arrest, whereas 4.81% of stops of black individuals resulted in an arrest;
d. In Beverly Hills, out of 604 total vehicle stops, approximately the same percentage of stops for white and black individuals resulted in a search. However, only 1.45% of stops of white individuals resulted in an arrest, whereas 8.61% of stops of black individuals resulted in an arrest.
B. Defendants Operate Their Municipal Courts and Jails as Profit Centers
58. Defendants, as a coordinated policy and practice, have improperly used their
municipal courts and jails as a profit center rather than a dispenser of justice.9 Over the past five
8 MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL VEHICLE STOPS REPORT, available at https://ago.mo.gov/home/vehicle-stops-report/advanced-search.
13 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 14 of 79 PageID #: 273
years, Defendants have reaped $76,670,220 in revenue from their municipal courts.10 In 2014,
an astonishing 22.3 percent of Defendants’ total revenue was collected through fines, fees, costs and surcharges.11 In one town, the City of Calverton Park, municipal court revenues accounted for 43.17% of the municipality’s total revenue for 2014.12
59. Well before each fiscal year, Defendants determine the amount of money they
need their municipal courts to generate. Defendants depend on the money collected through
these municipal courts to help fund their jails, pay municipal court judicial salaries, pay city
attorney’s office salaries, and fund other portions of their municipal budgets.
60. Defendants operate their courts and jails to maximize revenues at the expense of
justice. Defendants make decisions regarding the operation of the courts and the jails—including
the assessment of fines, fees, costs, and surcharges; the availability and conditions of payment
plans; the determination of amounts required for release from jail; the issuance and withdrawal
of arrest warrants; and the refusal to appoint an attorney for indigent defendants—based on their
desire to meet fiscal projections rather than on legitimate penological considerations.
9 Unless otherwise stated in this Complaint, the policies, practices, and procedures of Defendants described herein have been in existence for at least the past five years. 10 OFFICE OF STATE COURTS ADMIN., MO. JUDICIAL REPORT SUPP.: FISCAL YEAR 2011, Table 95, http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=51802; OFFICE OF STATE COURTS ADMIN., MO. JUDICIAL REPORT SUPP.: FISCAL YEAR 2012, Table 94, http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=58805; OFFICE OF STATE COURTS ADMIN., MO. JUDICIAL REPORT SUPP.: FISCAL YEAR 2013, Table 94, http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=68844; OFFICE OF STATE COURTS ADMIN., MO. JUDICIAL REPORT SUPP.: FISCAL YEAR 2014, Table 94, http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=83262; OFFICE OF STATE COURTS ADMIN., MO. JUDICIAL REPORT SUPP.: FISCAL YEAR 2015, Table 94, http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=96437. 11 OFFICE OF STATE COURTS ADMIN., MO. JUDICIAL REPORT SUPP.: FISCAL YEAR 2014, Table 94, http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=83262; General Administration #2, BETTER TOGETHER ST. LOUIS 8-12 (December 2015), http://www.bettertogetherstl.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/12/Better-Together-General-Administration-Report-2-FINAL-.pdf. 12 Id.
14 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 15 of 79 PageID #: 274
61. In 2015 alone, the Defendant Municipalities issued an average of 1.7 arrest warrants per household and one (1) arrest warrant for every adult,13 mostly for minor municipal ordinance violations, like traffic tickets.
62. Over the past five years, Defendants, according to their public records, have collected more than $76,670,220 million dollars from their municipal court fines, fees, costs, and surcharges. The population of these municipalities, including children, is 49,876.14
63. All thirteen (13) of the Defendant Municipalities depend on the St. Ann Jail as a jailing hub, thereby expanding significantly their capacities to boost municipal revenues by arresting, jailing, and coercing payments from more and more poor residents of the St. Louis region for minor traffic tickets. C. The Defendant Municipalities’ Unlawful Policies and Practices
64. The Defendants’ unlawful scheme generally works as follows: an individual is stopped (often illegitimately) in one of the Defendant Municipalities for a traffic offense or other minor violation. In many cases, these violations are “crimes of poverty,” meaning that they result, at least in part, from the individual’s inability to pay for things like insurance, vehicle registration fees, etc.
65. The police officer issues the person a citation and informs her that she can either pay the fine or appear at the municipal court for the relevant jurisdiction at a designated date and time. In some cases, the person can simply afford to pay the citation and thereby avoid the clutches of the municipal court system. But many in the St. Louis area are indigent and cannot
13 OFFICE OF STATE COURTS ADMIN., MO. JUDICIAL REPORT SUPP.: FISCAL YEAR 2015, Table 95, http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=96438; U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, PROFILING OF GENERAL POPULATION AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS 2010, http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 14 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF THE RESIDENT POPULATION (JULY 1, 2015), http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
15 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 16 of 79 PageID #: 275
afford to pay such citations without sacrificing basic necessities like food, diapers, and rent. For these individuals, the system works differently—it becomes a Kafkaesque web of indignities and incarceration that plunge the victim ever deeper into poverty.
66. An indigent person who cannot afford to pay a fine from an alleged traffic offense or other minor violation must appear in one of the Defendants’ municipal courts. There, she is forced to wait in line—in some cases, for hours—before being called before a municipal judge who will ask whether she has the money to pay, on the spot, the fine plus court costs. The municipal judge does not inquire as to whether the person is indigent or can afford to pay the fine, nor does he offer to provide a lawyer if the person cannot afford one. Instead, the municipal judge asks a simple question: do you have the money to pay today, yes or no? In many cases, the answer is no.
67. In the many cases in which the individual cannot come up with the requisite funds at the courthouse, municipal judges in the Defendant Municipalities regularly employ several tactics to coerce payment: (i) in some cases, the municipal judge instructs the person that she must return to court at a future date and time with the required funds, plus interest, or she will be jailed; (ii) in other cases, the municipal judge instructs the person to see the court clerk to set up a payment plan, which will require the person to pay in installments, subject to exorbitant interest rates, surcharges, and other fees; and (iii) in other cases, the municipal judge detains the person at the courthouse for the remainder of the court session (if not longer), instructing her to contact friends and family to bring money to the courthouse to secure the person’s release.
68. In all three scenarios, the individual faces the possibility of jail time if she is not able to pay the fine and associated court costs, interest, surcharges, and other fees. Municipal court officials in the Defendant Municipalities, including the municipal judges and clerks,
16 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 17 of 79 PageID #: 276
regularly instruct court attendees that failure to pay a fine and other costs will result in jail time.
Indeed, the residents of the Defendant Municipalities commonly understand that attending a
municipal court session without the funds necessary to pay off a citation or other debt can result
in jail time, irrespective of whether the individual actually has the ability to pay. Defendants’
tactics thus frighten many people, including many of the Plaintiffs, away from municipal court
dates when those individuals do not have enough money to pay their fines and other debts. This
enables the Defendant Municipalities ultimately to squeeze more money from these poor
residents.
69. If an individual misses or is alleged to have missed a court date, the Defendant
Municipality’s computer system automatically generates an arrest warrant for “Failure to Pay” or
“Failure to Appear.” According to recent reports from the state auditor’s office, no judge or prosecutor reviews or signs these arrest warrants.15
70. Often, the computer system auto-generates an arrest warrant even where (a) the
individual did, in fact, attend the court session, but the municipal clerk or other court official
erred in recording the person’s absence, (b) the individual did not receive adequate notice of the
15 See Summary of Audit Findings Judiciary---Municipal Divisions, Report No. 2016-046, available at http://app.auditor.mo.gov/AuditReports/AudRpt2.aspx?id=60, which states:
The Municipal Judge did not sign warrants issued and did not issue written authorization for the Court Clerk/Administrator to sign warrants on his behalf. In addition, the Municipal Judge allowed the Court Clerk/Administrator to use his signature stamp on warrants and failure to appear notices. Without the signature or written authorization, there is no documentation the warrants were authorized. In addition, the municipal division did not always issue warrants timely. Supreme Court Rule 37.45 states a warrant shall be signed by the judge or by the clerk of the court when directed by the judge for a specific warrant. To ensure warrants are properly issued in accordance with Supreme Court rules, the Municipal Judge should sign warrants or provide specific written authorization for the Court Clerk/Administrator to sign warrants and discontinue allowing the use of his facsimile signature. In addition, warrants should be issued timely to ensure outstanding court appearances and fines are addressed.
17 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 18 of 79 PageID #: 277
court date, or (c) the individual had a valid excuse for her absence -- e.g., because she was detained by another municipality, had a court date in another municipality, or was ill.
71. The Defendant Municipalities issue hundreds, if not thousands, of arrest warrants for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” each year. These arrest warrants are often pretextual and are simply a mechanism by which the Defendant Municipalities can coerce indigent persons to pay fines and costs that they cannot actually afford.
72. Irrespective of which jurisdiction issued the warrant for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear,” the arrest warrant empowers any of the Defendant Municipalities to stop and arrest the individual the warrant identifies. Having arrested this person, an officer may take the individual to: (i) the municipal jail of the municipality in which the person was arrested, (ii) the municipal jail of the municipality that issued the arrest warrant, or, in many cases, (iii) the St. Ann jail, which contracts with each of the Defendant Municipalities to provide jailing services.
73. Once the individual arrives at the jail, she can secure her release immediately if she is able to pay off her entire debt (including any interest, fees, or other costs). In some cases, a municipal jail will release the individual if she is able to pay a portion of her debt, taking whatever money the individual has on-hand or can obtain from family and friends.
74. If the individual cannot pay off her debt to the satisfaction of the municipal jail officials, she typically is held in jail for up to three days (and in some cases, even longer). In some cases, she may be transferred between the Defendants’ municipal jails. But in all cases, the basic construct is the same for people arrested for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” in connection with unpaid tickets for traffic violations and other municipal code offenses: one of the Defendants holds the person in jail unless and until she pays off her “debt,” generally for at least three days, at which point she is released or passed on to the custody of another
18 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 19 of 79 PageID #: 278
municipality, which holds her in jail unless and until she pays off her “debt” to that municipality,
and so on.
75. In almost all cases, an individual arrested for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to
Appear” does not appear before a judge to answer for the alleged crime of failing to attend a
court date. Instead, after her release from jail, the individual receives a new court date at which a
municipal judge will ask the same question: do you have money today to pay your fines, yes or
no? Not just the original fine for the traffic stop, but now multiplied many times over because of
the individual’s inability to pay and sometimes because Defendants’ abusive tactics have scared
away Plaintiffs and others from even coming to court. In this manner, the cycle repeats itself,
month after month, year after year.
76. The practices described in this “typical” example are ubiquitous in the Defendant
Municipalities. As a matter of policy and practice, municipal officials in the Defendant
Municipalities (including judges, police officers, and court clerks, among others) routinely:
a. Issue citations for supposed traffic and municipal code violations (which, on information and belief, are the product of discriminatory enforcement of the law);
b. Demand payment of fines for such traffic and municipal violations, without any inquiry into whether the person has the ability to pay, and without offering to provide a lawyer if the person is indigent and cannot afford one;
c. Establish draconian payment plans with usurious interest rates and other fees for indigent persons who cannot afford to pay their fines, and without offering nonmonetary alternatives to satisfy the obligation;
d. Threaten people, including the indigent, with incarceration under inhumane conditions if they cannot afford to pay their fines, court costs, and other fees;
e. Issue auto-generated arrest warrants for “Failure to Appear,” even if the person did in fact appear, was unable to appear for good
19 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 20 of 79 PageID #: 279
reason (including lack of notice), or was intimidated by municipal officials into not appearing because of the well-founded fear that they would be summarily thrown into jail if they appeared without being able to pay;
f. Incarcerate people for their inability to pay fines, court costs, and other fees, or on the basis of unlawful, auto-generated arrest warrants for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” at a court date;
g. Release people from jail immediately if they are able to pay their outstanding debts to the Defendant Municipalityor, in some cases, a portion of their outstanding debtseven if the purported basis for the arrest was the criminal act of failing to appear at a court date; and
h. Detain people in local jails for up to three days, if not longer, if they could not afford to pay their outstanding debts, or at least some portion of such debts.
i. Debt-Collection Proceedings in the Defendants’ Municipal Courts
77. The Defendants’ municipal courts are staffed primarily by municipal judges, city
attorneys and/or prosecutors, and court clerks.
78. There is extraordinary overlap among these court officials in the Defendant
Municipalities. For example, attorneys from a single law firm (with fewer than 20 attorneys)
serve as judge, prosecutor, or city attorney in more than 27% of St. Louis County municipalities
(at least 25 out of 90), including many of the Defendant Municipalities. Likewise, in some
instances, the city attorney for one municipality serves as the municipal judge in another. Put
simply, Defendants have created and operated an incestuous system with no meaningful lines
between prosecutor and judge; it cannot possibly dispense justice.
79. Although each of the Defendant Municipalities maintains and operates its own
municipal court, the policies and practices in these municipalities are virtually the same in all
material respects.
20 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 21 of 79 PageID #: 280
80. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendants conduct municipal court sessions approximately only one to four times per month.
81. The purported rationale of these municipal court sessions is to adjudicate traffic violations and other minor offenses; the real purpose, however, is to collect payments, in an assembly-line fashion, for outstanding tickets from alleged traffic and other minor municipal code violations.
82. If a person is too poor to pay her debts, her case can go on indefinitely while Defendants impose ever-mounting fees and surcharges for missed debt-collection payments.
83. A person can end this debt collection process only by paying what the Defendant Municipality claims that she owes, including any surcharges or fees, which can balloon to sums that dwarf the original fine for the minor traffic offense that launched the vicious cycle.
84. Defendants do not advise people appearing at these municipal court sessions about their relevant rights under federal or Missouri law, including applicable constitutional rights and state-law defenses and procedures, nor do Defendants provide people any realistic avenue of escape from the pernicious web in which they are entangled.
85. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendants do not to provide an attorney to people appearing at these municipal court sessions.
86. Pursuant to imprison those who are unable to satisfy whatever fines and penalties (either in full or as part of a repayment schedule) Defendants set at these municipal court sessions. Defendants do so without providing due process, without conducting any meaningful or individualized inquiry into a person’s ability to pay, and without considering the availability or suitability of alternatives to imprisonment.
21 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 22 of 79 PageID #: 281
87. Because of Defendants’ policy and practice of not appointing counsel, the vast majority of those jailed for failing to satisfy the payment plan condition that Defendants impose, or in connection with an arrest warrant for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear,” have no access to an attorney.
ii. Defendants’ Flawed and Unlawful Warrant Process 88. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendants apply arbitrary and illegal policies for the issuance and enforcement of arrest warrants for those unable to satisfy Defendants’ extortionate demands. 89. Defendants issue arrest warrants for failure to make a payment by a certain date (“Failure to Pay”) without probable cause to believe that the person has the ability to make a payment. Defendants prey on the unrepresented, refusing to withdraw arrest warrants even for those who are plainly too poor to make payments. 90. Defendants also routinely issue arrest warrants for “Failure to Appear” at court dates without giving people adequate notice of the supposed obligation to appear, such as when Defendants fail to serve a valid summons or when the Defendants reschedule a hearing without providing reasonable notice. 91. The arrest warrants that Defendants issue for “Failure to Pay” and “Failure to Appear” at court dates are auto-generated by a computer program, based on information that the municipal court clerks enter manually into the computer. No judge or magistrate approves these warrants before they are issued. On information and belief, all of the Defendant Municipalities use this same computer program to generate arrest warrants without judicial involvement in connection with debt-collection proceedings in their municipal courts.
22 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 23 of 79 PageID #: 282
92. After arresting a person based on a warrant, Defendants routinely demand that she make immediate payment and, if she does not do so, Defendants hold the person in jail and unnecessarily delay presentment in court for days or weeks in an effort to coerce the victim to pay for her freedom, regardless of her indigence.
iii. The Arbitrary and Indefinite Detention of the Indigent 93. After Defendants book a person in jail for either “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear,” Defendants offer immediate release in exchange for a cash payment to the municipality on whose behalf they are incarcerating her. The amount of cash that Defendants require for release is the total debt the person owes from judgments in old traffic and other misdemeanor cases. 94. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendants hold people in jail, in abject conditions, for an indeterminate period of several days or more unless and until they or their families pay the municipality the amounts Defendants demand. 95. For those individuals that Defendants imprison for failing to satisfy a previously established payment schedule, Defendants confiscate any previous amounts paid by the person and reset the person’s debts. Defendants take these actions without providing any meaningful process or access to counsel. 96. Without affording any legal process, Defendants also tack on a “warrant” fee for the person’s missed payment date. The person is not arraigned on any new charge for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” before Defendants impose the additional “warrant” fee, nor do Defendants allow the person a meaningful opportunity to defend against such a potential charge,
23 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 24 of 79 PageID #: 283
or show that Defendants have not satisfied its elements.16 Again, Defendants appoint no attorney to assist the person on any new charge. Defendants simply autocratically add the charges to the person’s debts.
97. Through these practices, Defendants strong-arm many impoverished people in the Defendant Municipalities and elsewhere in the metropolitan area to pay Defendants thousands of dollars over a period of many years based on a few relatively inexpensive initial tickets.
98. If they were able, a person could end this cycle by paying the balance of her debt. It is and has been the policy and practice of the Defendants to allow any inmate at any time to pay the full amount of the debt owed and to be released immediately, terminating all existing “cases” for which debt is being collected.
iv. Sequential Detentions on Behalf of Multiple Municipalities 99. In many cases, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated receive citations for traffic and other minor violations in multiple different municipalities (in some cases, for the exact same violation, such as a broken taillight). 100. Many of the Plaintiffs, and others like them, have outstanding debts in several different municipalities that they simply cannot afford to pay. As these rapidly compounding fines, fees, costs, and surcharges from multiple municipalities pile up, the likelihood that an indigent person will be able to pay off even one municipality diminishes greatly, creating a never-ending spiral of debt, interest charges, missed payments, and incarceration.
16 The practice of adding on an illegal warrant recall fee is widespread throughout the region. Counsel for Plaintiffs has sued several municipalities in state court for imposing these fees. See White v. City of Pine Lawn, 14SL-CC04194 (St. Louis County Circuit Court, Dec. 2014); Pruitt v. City of Wellston, 14SL-CC04192 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Dec. 2014); Lampkin v. City of Jennings, 14SL-CC04207 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Dec. 2014); Wann v. City of St. Louis, 1422CC10272 (St. Louis City Cir. Ct., Dec. 2014); Reed v. City of Ferguson, 14SL-CC04195 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Dec. 2014); Eldridge v. City of St. John, 15SL-00456 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Feb. 2015); Watkins v. City of Florissant, 16SL-CC00165 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Jan. 2016).
24 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 25 of 79 PageID #: 284
101. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendants hold inmates in their jails on behalf of multiple municipalities. In some instances, Defendants imprison people for days or weeks at a time on behalf of multiple municipalities in a sequential fashion (i.e., Defendants hold the inmate in one municipality’s jail for multiple other municipalities, one after another).
102. In other words, as soon as an inmate pays off his debt for one municipality to secure his “release,” Defendants return him to his jail cell (or sometimes transfer him to the custody of a different municipality) for the alleged failure to pay debts owed to another municipality.
103. In this manner, Defendants may hold an indigent person in jail for extended periods of timeweeks or, in some cases, even monthssimply because he is too poor to pay off his debts, and his imprisonment only exacerbates his poverty, making him even less able to break out of this vicious cycle of harassment and extortion.
v. Defendants Create a Culture of Fear 104. Defendants’ policies and practices have engendered fear among the poorest residents of the St. Louis metropolitan area. 105. Many of these residents do not, or are reluctant to, leave their homes, or to travel between municipalities, for fear of being stopped, arrested, and incarcerated based on outstanding debts on traffic tickets that they cannot afford to pay. 106. They are afraid to appear at the payment window or in Defendants’ courts to explain their indigence because they justifiably fear that Defendants will jail them without any meaningful process. This allows Defendants to jack up the fees even higher. 107. The fear that Defendants have fostered has further degraded the quality of life of the poorest residents in Defendants’ municipalities and elsewhere in the metropolitan area.
25 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 26 of 79 PageID #: 285
Many have cut back on food, clothing, utilities, sanitary home repairs, and other basic necessities of life to satisfy, or try to satisfy, Defendants’ rapacious demands for money.
vi. The Cycle of Debt and Jailing 108. Like the other impoverished people stuck in the tentacles of Defendants’ brutal and pernicious system, Plaintiffs have been overwhelmed by the combination of rapidly compounding fines, fees, costs, and surcharges from multiple municipalities, as well as the cycle of repeated jailings that leads to lost jobs, poor health, and inadequate care for dependents. After scraping together cash from family and friends and borrowing money to pay off one Defendant, Plaintiffs and other Class members often find themselves under arrest by another Defendant. 109. For years, Plaintiffs have tried unsuccessfully to navigate this system without financial resources and without the assistance of a lawyer who understands the process—never knowing if arrest awaits when they leave the house, fearing, if they are arrested, indefinite incarceration because of their poverty. The futility of these efforts fundamentally alters Plaintiffs’ lives and often breeds a level of hopelessness that corrodes any bond with the community. 110. The fear of losing basic rights with no recourse is a daily fact of life for Plaintiffs and thousands of others in the metropolitan area. D. The Defendant Municipalities Act Pursuant to a Common Plan or Scheme 111. The Defendant Municipalities have acted, and continue to act, in concert to perpetuate this unlawful scheme, incarcerating indigent persons based on their inability to pay fines and associated costs from traffic tickets and other minor municipal violations. 112. Each of the Defendant Municipalities routinely arrests and detains people on the basis of auto-generated or otherwise unlawful arrest warrants that other Defendant Municipalities
26 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 27 of 79 PageID #: 286
issue in connection with unpaid tickets for traffic and other minor offenses. The Defendant Municipalities know, or should know, that these arrest warrants are unlawful.
113. Each of the Defendant Municipalities, excluding St. Ann, only has the capacity to hold a few individuals at any given time, which limits those municipalities’ ability to generate funds.
114. In contrast, “[t]he jail in St. Ann is much bigger than others in nearby towns. It sleeps 42, not including a pen for short-timers and a juvenile area.”17
115. St. Ann provides jailing services for each of the other Defendant Municipalities. Pursuant to contractual arrangements, St. Ann charges each of the other Defendant Municipalities a fee for each day St. Ann incarcerates an individual on the municipality’s behalf. On information and belief, this fee is $35 per day.
116. St. Ann routinely holds indigent persons in its jail on behalf of multiple municipalities. In some instances, St. Ann holds inmates for days or weeks at a time on behalf of the Defendant Municipalities in a sequential fashion (i.e., the inmate is held in St. Ann’s jail for multiple other municipalities, one after another).
117. For example, St. Ann might hold an individual in its jail for three days on behalf of Defendant Municipality X. Upon the person’s “release” from the custody of Defendant Municipality X, St. Ann immediately transfers the person to the custody of Defendant Municipality Y (on whose behalf St. Ann also holds the person). Thus, the person never sees the light of day. Instead, St. Ann continues to hold the person in its jail, but now it is on behalf of Defendant Municipality Y (unless, of course, the person can afford to pay for her release).

17 Bogan, supra at n. 3.

27 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 28 of 79 PageID #: 287
118. As described above, there also is substantial overlap among the municipal judges, city attorneys, and prosecutors that form the bedrock of Defendants’ municipal court system. E. The Named Plaintiffs’ Imprisonment
119. Defendants’ policies and practices in collecting unpaid fines, fees, costs, and surcharges relating to traffic tickets and other minor offenses, for at least the past five years, caused and exemplifies the violations of the named Plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights.
i. Quinton M. Thomas 120. Quinton Thomas is a 28-year-old man who resides in St. Louis, Missouri. He is African-American. 121. Mr. Thomas has been jailed in the St. Ann Jail at least three times on warrants issued by Normandy and Edmundson, among other municipalities. The warrants initially stemmed from minor, driving-related offenses, such as running a stop sign, no proof of insurance, and improper vehicle registration. 122. In 2012, officers of the Normandy Police Department stopped Mr. Thomas for invalid license plates and failure to register his vehicle. The officers issued Mr. Thomas citations for these violations totaling $600. 123. Mr. Thomas could not afford to pay the $600 fine. Mr. Thomas appeared at the Normandy Municipal Court and explained to the municipal court judge that he could not afford to pay the $600 fine. 124. The municipal court judge responded that if Mr. Thomas did not pay at least $100, Normandy would issue a warrant for his arrest. Mr. Thomas responded that he could not afford to pay $100. He asked whether he could pay $50 instead, and the judge stated that he
28 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 29 of 79 PageID #: 288
could not. Neither the municipal court judge nor any other court official made any inquiry into Mr. Thomas’ ability to pay, nor did they appoint an attorney for him.
125. Neither the municipal court judge nor any other court official offered Mr. Thomas alternatives to the fine, such as community service, even though Mr. Thomas unequivocally informed them that he could not afford to pay even $100 of the fine.
126. The municipal court judge, apparently indifferent to Mr. Thomas’ pleas of indigence, later issued a warrant for his arrest based on Mr. Thomas’ failure to pay $100.
127. In 2013, Mr. Thomas was driving to work and was stopped by officers of the Edmundson Police Department for allegedly failing to make a complete stop at a stop sign. Mr. Thomas denies running the stop sign. The officers informed Mr. Thomas that he had outstanding warrants in Normandy, Pine Lawn and St. John, among others. The Edmundson police officers took Mr. Thomas to the St. Ann Jail.
128. Officers at the St. Ann Jail informed Mr. Thomas that he could be released if he paid a $150 bond. There was no bail hearing. Mr. Thomas could not afford to make this payment and thus was unable to secure his release. The St. Ann Jail held Mr. Thomas for three days on behalf of Normandy and Edmundson.
129. The conditions in the St. Ann Jail were terrible. The jail cells were packed four people to a cell. The cells were so filthy that Mr. Thomas did not want to make contact with the walls or even the mattresses, which appeared not to have been cleaned in years. Jail officers provided Mr. Thomas (and other inmates) with a used blanket, but nothing else to separate himself from the disgusting and unsanitary mattress.
29 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 30 of 79 PageID #: 289
130. The food in the St. Ann Jail was unhealthy and nearly inedible. Every meal consisted of a bologna sandwich (with greenish meat and hard bread), applesauce, and black coffee.
131. After three days, the St. Ann Jail “released” Mr. Thomas, and officers from the City of St. John transported Mr. Thomas to the St. John Police Department.
132. The St. John Police told Mr. Thomas that he had an outstanding warrant for an allegedly-unpaid parking ticket in St. John, information of which Mr. Thomas was previously unaware. Officers further informed him that, because of additional late fees and fines that had accumulated over time, the amount owed had ballooned from approximately $100 to almost $500.
133. Police officers in St. John informed Mr. Thomas that they were going to take him to the St. Louis County Justice Center in Clayton unless he could make a payment of at least $120. There was no bail hearing. Mr. Thomas contacted his father, who was able to pay the $120 bond to secure Mr. Thomas’ release from St. John.
134. Shortly after his release, Mr. Thomas appeared at the Edmundson Municipal Court and explained to the municipal court judge that he could not afford to pay the $300 citation for running a stop sign.
135. The municipal court judge was indifferent to Mr. Thomas’ pleas of indigence and directed Mr. Thomas to see the municipal court clerk to set up a payment plan. The payment plan, however, only worsened Mr. Thomas’ situation—it included additional fees and costs and exorbitant interest rates, resulting in monthly payments that Mr. Thomas could not afford.
136. Neither the municipal court judge nor any other court official made any inquiry into Mr. Thomas’ ability to pay, nor did they appoint an attorney for Mr. Thomas.
30 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 31 of 79 PageID #: 290
137. Neither the municipal court judge nor any other court official offered Mr. Thomas alternatives to the fine, such as community service, even though Mr. Thomas unequivocally informed them that he could not afford to pay the fine.
138. A key reason Mr. Thomas could not afford to make the monthly payments required by the payment plan was that he had outstanding (and continually compounding) fines and court costs stemming from tickets for traffic and other minor violations in several other municipalities, including St. Charles, St. John, and Normandy.
139. Mr. Thomas missed a monthly payment because he could not afford to make the payment. Because Mr. Thomas could not afford to make the monthly payments, Edmundson issued a warrant for his arrest for “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear.”
140. As a result of the traffic ticketsonly one of which resulted from an alleged moving violationand warrants issued by Edmundson and Normandy, Mr. Thomas’ license was suspended in 2013, causing Mr. Thomas to lose his trucking job (which required a commercial driver’s license).
141. In January 2015, officers of the Dellwood Police Department responded to complaints of a domestic disturbance at Mr. Thomas’ home stemming from a verbal argument between Mr. Thomas and his girlfriend. The officers ran Mr. Thomas’ and his girlfriend’s names and discovered that both had outstanding warrants for unpaid traffic tickets. Notably, Dellwood did not issue any charges and did not make any arrests in connection with the domestic disturbance complaint.
142. The officers arrested Mr. Thomas and took him to the St. Louis County Justice Center in Clayton on outstanding warrants for unpaid traffic tickets. At the Justice Center, jail officers informed Mr. Thomas that they would release him if he paid a bond. There was no bail
31 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 32 of 79 PageID #: 291
hearing. Mr. Thomas could not afford to make this payment and thus was unable to secure his release. Mr. Thomas was held in Clayton for approximately three days.
143. After approximately three days, officers at the Justice Center transferred Mr. Thomas to the St. Ann Jail, which held him on behalf of Normandy and Edmundson, among other municipalities, for the outstanding warrants described above. Officers at the St. Ann Jail informed Mr. Thomas that they would release him if he paid a bond. There was no bail hearing. Mr. Thomas was once again unable to pay a bond to secure his release from St. Ann.
144. As on previous occasions, the St. Ann Jail incarcerated Mr. Thomas in overcrowded and filthy cells, and provided disgusting and unhealthy food.
145. After at least one day in the St. Ann Jail, officers at the St. Ann Jail transferred Mr. Thomas to the O’Fallon Jail.
146. Officers at the O’Fallon Jail informed Mr. Thomas that his bond to secure his release was $340. There was no bail hearing. Mr. Thomas was able to scrounge together enough money from family and friends to pay a $340 bond to O’Fallon in order to secure his release.
147. In May 2016, officers of the Beverly Hills Police Department stopped Mr. Thomas for a broken bumper. The officers informed Mr. Thomas that he had outstanding warrants in Normandy and Edmundson, among others, and took Mr. Thomas to the Beverly Hills Police Department. The officers detained Mr. Thomas at the Beverly Hills Police Department for approximately one hour.
148. The officers told Mr. Thomas that he would need to pay $300 “to get out.” There was no bail hearing. Mr. Thomas was unable to pay that bond amount.
149. While Mr. Thomas was detained at the Beverly Hills Police Department, the officers refused to allow any of Mr. Thomas’ friends or family to retrieve the car. As a result,
32 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 33 of 79 PageID #: 292
Mr. Thomas’ car was sent to impound. Mr. Thomas could not afford to get the car out of impound and consequently lost his car permanently.
150. Officers from the St. Ann Police Department picked Mr. Thomas up from the Beverly Hills Police Department and took him to the St. Ann Jail on behalf of Normandy and Edmundson (in connection with warrants for unpaid traffic tickets and “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear” charges, as described above).
151. As on previous occasions, the St. Ann Jail incarcerated Mr. Thomas in overcrowded and filthy cells, and provided disgusting and unhealthy food.
152. Mr. Thomas was held in the St. Ann Jail for a day and a half. Mr. Thomas missed a day of work at his construction job because he was incarcerated. As a result of missing work due to his incarceration for failure to pay fines and costs from minor, traffic-related offenses, Mr. Thomas was fired from his construction job.
ii. Roelif Earl Carter 153. Roelif Earl Carter is a 63-year-old husband and the sole provider for his wife and daughter. He is African-American. 154. Mr. Carter is a Veteran of the United States Air Force and was honorably discharged from service in 1976. 155. After his service in the Air Force, Mr. Carter worked for the Ford Motor Company for thirteen years until he suffered a brain aneurysm that left him unable to work. He currently receives Supplemental Security Income due to his disability. 156. Mr. Carter has been jailed in the St. Ann Jail on at least four occasions in connection with warrants issued by Normandy and Cool Valley. The warrants issued by
33 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 34 of 79 PageID #: 293
Normandy and Cool Valley initially stemmed from minor traffic infractions, including driving with a suspended license and failure to provide proof of insurance, from the early 2000s.
157. In October 2002, officers of the Cool Valley Police Department stopped Mr. Carter and issued him a citation for failure to provide proof of insurance.
158. Mr. Carter could not afford to pay Cool Valley’s fine. On multiple occasions, Mr. Carter appeared at the Cool Valley Municipal Court in connection with the fine for his traffic offense. Mr. Carter explained to the municipal court judge that he could not afford to pay the citation. The municipal court judge did not make any inquiry into Mr. Carter’s ability to pay, nor did the judge appoint an attorney for Mr. Carter. Instead, the judge directed Mr. Carter to see the municipal court clerk to set up a payment plan.
159. The municipal court clerk set up a payment plan for Mr. Carter, requiring him to pay $50 per month until his fine (including court costs, surcharges, and interest) was paid off in full.
160. When Mr. Carter was able to make his monthly payment (which he was able to do on some occasions), he was not required to appear at scheduled court sessions of the Cool Valley Municipal Court.
161. However, when Mr. Carter was not able to make his monthly payment, Cool Valley instructed that he was required to appear at scheduled court dates at the Cool Valley Municipal Court. At these municipal court sessions, the judge inquired only as to whether Mr. Carter had his monthly payment with him.
162. On each of the occasions Mr. Carter appeared at the Cool Valley Municipal Court, Mr. Carter did not have the requisite funds to make his monthly payment. Thus, on each occasion, the municipal court judge directed Mr. Carter to sit in the back of the courthouse until
34 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 35 of 79 PageID #: 294
the end of the session (which could be up to two hours later), at which point the judge directed Mr. Carter to see the municipal court clerk. When Mr. Carter left the court, he owed additional court costs, surcharges, and interest payments that bore no relationship to the actual cost, if any, the court incurred by virtue of the missed payment.
163. When Mr. Carter was not able to make his monthly payment, the Cool Valley Municipal Court automatically generated a warrant for his arrest (for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear”). On multiple occasions in the last five years, Cool Valley automatically generated arrest warrants for Mr. Carter for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear.”
164. Mr Carter had outstanding arrest warrants from Cool Valley from 2002 until early 2016, when ArchCity Defenders secured a dismissal of charges against Mr. Carter. All of his warrants were for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” offenses in connection with trafficrelated infractions for which Mr. Carter could not afford to pay the fine.
165. In November 2012, officers of the Normandy Police Department stopped Mr. Carter and issued him a citation for allegedly running a red light, driving with a suspended license, and no proof of insurance.
166. Mr. Carter could not afford to pay the fine issued by Normandy. Mr. Carter knew that many municipalities, including Normandy, did not accept partial payment and engaged in a regular practice of arresting people who were unable to pay their fines. Because he could not afford to pay the fine, Mr. Carter did not appear at his scheduled court date and Normandy issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Carter for “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear.”
167. Following Normandy’s issuance of an arrest warrant for Mr. Carter’s alleged “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear,” Mr. Carter has appeared (or attempted to appear) in Normandy Municipal Court on at least two occasions. On neither occasion did the municipal
35 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 36 of 79 PageID #: 295
court judge or any other municipal court official make any inquiry into Mr. Carter’s ability to pay, nor did the judge appoint an attorney for Mr. Carter.
168. On the first occasion, the municipal courthouse was overcrowded and Mr. Carter was unable to get in the door. Even though Mr. Carter tried to appear for his court date and was unable to do so only because the courthouse was overcrowded, Normandy issued a warrant for Mr. Carter’s arrest for “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear.”
169. On the second occasion, in or around January 2013, Mr. Carter appeared before a municipal court judge. The judge asked whether Mr. Carter had money with him to pay the outstanding fines and costs. Mr. Carter explained that he did not have money with him and could not afford to pay the fine, and asked whether community service was an option since Mr. Carter was indigent and could not afford to pay. The judge said no to Mr. Carter’s request for community service and directed Mr. Carter to see the municipal court clerk.
170. The municipal court clerk informed Mr. Carter that if he did not pay $100 by the next day, Normandy would issue a warrant for Mr. Carter’s arrest. Mr. Carter could not afford to make the $100 payment, and Normandy thereafter issued a warrant for his arrest.
171. As of March 2015, Mr. Carter had five outstanding arrest warrants from Normandy, all of which are for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” offenses in connection with traffic-related infractions for which Mr. Carter could not afford to pay the fine.
172. In December 2012, Mr. Carter was pulled over in Ferguson by officers of the Ferguson Police Department. The officers informed Mr. Carter that he had outstanding warrants in Cool Valley and Normandy (as described above) and took Mr. Carter to the St. Ann Jail.
36 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 37 of 79 PageID #: 296
173. Officers of the St. Ann Jail informed Mr. Carter that he could be released if he paid a $500 bond. There was no bail hearing. Mr. Carter could not afford to make this payment and thus was unable to secure his release.
174. The St. Ann Jail held Mr. Carter for three days on behalf of Cool Valley. After three days, Cool Valley “released” Mr. Carter. However, he remained in the St. Ann Jail, which now held him on behalf of Normandy (based on the outstanding warrants, as described above). The St. Ann Jail officers again informed Mr. Carter that he could be released if he paid a $500 bond. Again, there was no bail hearing. And again, Mr. Carter was unable to make this payment to secure his release.
175. Mr. Carter spent three days in the St. Ann Jail on behalf of Normandy and thenafter a total of six daysthe St. Ann Jail finally released him.
176. In or around December 2013, officers of the Ferguson Police Department stopped Mr. Carter and again incarcerated him in the St. Ann Jail on behalf of Cool Valley and Normandy for the same “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear” warrants discussed above.
177. The St. Ann Jail again held Mr. Carter for three days on behalf of Cool Valley and three days on behalf of Normandy (for a total of six days).
178. After six days, the St. Ann Jail “released” Mr. Carter on behalf of Normandy. However, officers of the St. Ann Jail informed Mr. Carter that they were continuing to hold him on behalf of St. Louis City. Mr. Carter told the jail officers that he did not have any outstanding warrants in St. Louis City. The officers, presumably after confirming that Mr. Carter did not have any outstanding warrants in St. Louis City, finally released him at 2:00 a.m. The officers never allowed Mr. Carter to make a free phone call, nor did they provide him any means of
37 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 38 of 79 PageID #: 297
transportation from the Jail. As a result, Mr. Carter had to walk 15 miles to his home on a cold night, finally reaching his home the next morning.
179. The conditions in the St. Ann Jail were filthy. Mr. Carter was given an orange jumpsuit to wear. The food provided to Mr. Carter was inadequate, sometimes only a honey bun and a packaged pot pie for the whole day.
iii. Bradley Jiles 180. Bradley Jiles is a 24-year-old African American man. 181. Mr. Jiles has been jailed more than ten times in the last five years in connection with alleged municipal ordinance violations. Over the span of approximately one year — from the summer of 2014 to the spring of 2015 — Mr. Jiles was jailed on four separate occasions in connection with unpaid fines for traffic and other minor violations. 182. Particularly, in June 2015, Mr. Jiles was driving to court after work to obtain a replacement title for his car after the original title had been damaged in the rain. He was driving within the speed limit and was pulled over. When Mr. Jiles inquired as to why, the officer told him that he was unregistered, had been speeding, and looked suspicious. The officer said to Mr. Jiles, “I could be an asshole and give you all these tickets because of your attitude.” The officer cited Mr. Jiles for failure to register, improper vehicle registration, and expired license. 183. Mr. Jiles was arrested and spent two days in St. Louis County Justice Center. The holding cell was covered with old gum and graffiti. Mr. Jiles pled guilty and was sentenced to two days of time served. 184. Officers at the Justice Center then transported Mr. Jiles to the Hazelwood Jail on a warrant for “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear” in connection with an unpaid traffic ticket for driving with an expired license.
38 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 39 of 79 PageID #: 298
185. After 24 to 48 hours, the Hazelwood Jail “released” Mr. Jiles and transported him to the St. Ann Jail on a warrant for “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear” in connection with an unpaid traffic ticket in Edmundson for driving with invalid license plates.
186. Officers at the St. Ann Jail told Mr. Jiles that he could secure his release if he paid several hundred dollars in bond to Edmundson (based on outstanding fines for traffic and other minor violations). There was no bail hearing.
187. Mr. Jiles could not afford to pay the bond to secure his release. As a result, the St. Ann Jail held Mr. Jiles for at least three days. While he was in the St. Ann Jail, Mr. Jiles repeatedly asked how long he would be held, but was told nothing.
188. Finally, one of the St. Ann Jail officers noticed in Mr. Jiles’s file that Mr. Jiles should have been released. The St. Ann Jail released Mr. Jiles later that day.
189. Mr. Jiles lost income because of the amount of time he spent in jail, all for what amounted to routine, unjustified, or discriminatory traffic stops and minor municipal violations.
iv. Angela Davis 190. Angela Davis is a 44 year-old African-American mother of four. She resides in St. Louis, Missouri and has worked for Wells Fargo Advisors in Frontenac for the last eight years. 191. Ms. Davis has appeared before multiple municipal courts, including Normandy and Frontenac, but fears making an appearance if she cannot afford to pay. She has been told on at least one occasion, by a Normandy court clerk, that she would be locked up if she did not show up to court and pay. 192. Despite the threat of imprisonment, Ms. Davis was never offered legal counsel by any municipal court. Nor did any court ever inquire into her ability to pay the fine. Rather, in
39 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 40 of 79 PageID #: 299
every instance in which Ms. Davis has appeared in municipal court, the municipal court judge has dictated the fine, recited a list of pre-determined optionsnone of which were suitable for
Ms. Davis’ individual circumstancesand informed Ms. Davis to speak with the clerk. 193. Ms. Davis makes every effort to pay off any outstanding debts, but her financial
resources remain limited. She recently paid off her debt in Normandy, which took almost a year at $100/month, a significant financial burden. She also has sought relief through the “amnesty” program in several municipalities.18 Despite her efforts, she still has two warrants in Florissant outstanding with a pending amnesty application.
194. As a result, Ms. Davis has lived under a cloud of uncertainty that prevents her from living a normal life without fear of imprisonment due to her financial circumstances. At any time, Defendantsunder the guise of a routine traffic stopcan and do arrest and jail Ms. Davis because she is unable to afford earlier fines.
195. A Sunday evening in September 2013 illustrates the manner in which Defendants punish Ms. Davis for her financial circumstances. That evening, Ms. Davis was waiting to make a left turn at a Florissant intersection. She had two passengers in her car. One of these passengers, Mr. David Hines, is African-American. The other is white.
18 St. Louis County offers an “amnesty” program in many of its municipal courts on a yearly basis. See, e.g., http://www.mslaca.org/index.php/amnesty-program/. Rather than acting as a true amnesty, this program simply allows participants to receive a voucher upon the payment of a $10 processing fee that must be presented at the municipal court’s next court date. At that court date, the participant must also present $100 in cash. If the participant pays $110, the warrant will not be executed. Even if the participant pays the $110 and has her warrant recalled, this “amnesty” program does not address the underlying fines and fees. The participant is placed back on a payment docket and is left without an attorney to negotiate his or her remaining fines. Additionally, it costs participants $110 per municipality where they have an active warrant. This can add up quickly to $500-$700 just to have the warrants recalled while the underlying cases remain pending.
40 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 41 of 79 PageID #: 300
196. While she waited, a police car turned around and pulled up next to her. After the light turned green, Ms. Davis made a left turn. The police car flashed its lights and pulled her over. The officer said he pulled Ms. Davis over because her tags were expired.
197. The officer ran the names of Ms. Davis and her two passengers. The search returned multiple warrants for Ms. Davis in Normandy from 2013 (no proof of insurance, failure to register her vehicle, and corresponding violations of “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear”), University City from 2012 (failure to register her vehicle and speeding), and Florissant (failure to register her vehicle).
198. After the police completed their search for outstanding warrants, they arrested Ms. Davis and Mr. Hines. The white passenger, despite having an outstanding warrant in Washington state, was not arrested.
199. Over the next 22 hours, Ms. Davis was dragged to four separate jails. Her first stop was Florissant Jail. She arrived there around 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. that Sunday night, leaving around 1:00 a.m. on Monday morning.
200. When she arrived at the Florissant Jail, officers informed her that she could secure her release if she paid a bond of $800, which was far beyond her ability to pay. There was no bail hearing. The officers did not inform Ms. Davis how that amount was calculated, nor did any official at the Florissant Jail ask if she would be able to afford payment. Instead, jail officers told Ms. Davis that she “gotta do some time” in Florissant for at least two-and-a-half hours “for her situation” before she could be passed off to the next municipality. In the meantime, Florissant forced Ms. Davis to don a prisoner’s jumpsuit.
201. Florissant failed to provide Ms. Davis a court date or any notice of next steps following her imprisonment. Instead, they handed her off to University City.
41 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 42 of 79 PageID #: 301
202. Upon arriving at University City, Ms. Davis learned that her sister had paid the $150 bond amount owed University City while Ms. Davis was imprisoned in Florissant. This payment should have been sufficient to secure Ms. Davis’ release, but it merely cleared her debt to University City.
203. University City held Ms. Davis in jail for approximately one hour. The jail was an older facility that was not well maintained, and had not been cleaned for quite some time.
204. University City next transported Ms. Davis to Frontenac. The Frontenac Jail held Ms. Davis for two hours. Ms. Davis did not know why the Frontenac Jail was holding her, nor did jail officers inform her of the reason for her incarceration.
205. After two hours, the Frontenac Jail “released” Ms. Davis and gave her a court date. When Ms. Davis later appeared at the Frontenac municipal court, she learned that the reason for her incarceration was an unpaid $21.40 court fee. Ms. Davis lost her freedom in Frontenac for approximately two hours for this de minimis fee. No effort was made to address this issue before she was jailed or to consider whether she had the ability to pay.
206. After her “release” from Frontenac, Ms. Davis was next transported to the St. Ann Jail. The St. Ann Jail held Ms. Davis on outstanding warrants in Normandy for unpaid traffic tickets. Officers at the St. Ann Jail made no inquiry into Mr. Davis’ ability to pay her outstanding fines.
207. Ms. Davis spent around six hours locked in the St. Ann Jail, growing increasingly unnerved by sharing a cramped, noisy cell with a schizophrenic inmate who was announcing her intent to kill someone. The guards made no effort to separate this inmate from others or otherwise to assure the safety of Ms. Davis and the other inmates.
42 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 43 of 79 PageID #: 302
208. Officers at the St. Ann Jail did not tell Ms. Davis why she was in jail and refused to discuss a bond. The officers told Ms. Davis that she would have to call the Normandy Municipal Court to find out how much money she owed.
209. The officers, however, did not allow Ms. Davis to make any calls, thereby preventing her from calling the court to determine how much money she owed, from attempting to obtain money from family or friends to secure her release, and from exercising her right to seek legal counsel.
210. After being detained for around two hours, Ms. Davis’ sister paid Ms. Davis’ bond for her Normandy warrant. Officers at the St. Ann Jail refused to release Ms. Davis, however, claiming she had a pending warrant in Berkeley.
211. Ms. Davis’ sister drove to Berkeley twice to pay her sister’s bond. On both occasions, Berkeley officials said that they had notified St. Ann that they did not want to detain Ms. Davis. Notwithstanding this communication from Berkeley, the St. Ann Jail arbitrarily and petulantly continued to hold Ms. Davis for several more hours.
212. Finally, the St. Ann Jail released Ms. Davis. Officers at the St. Ann Jail did not tell Ms. Davis why she had been released; they merely gave Ms. Davis a sheet of paper with a court date, which they had stapled to her belongings.
213. At no time during her stay in four separate jails did any police officer, guard or other official seek to ascertain Ms. Davis’ ability to pay the debts that the municipalities claimed that she owed.
214. At no time during her stay in four separate jails was Ms. Davis brought before a judge or offered assistance of counsel.
43 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 44 of 79 PageID #: 303
215. The Defendant Municipalities treated Ms. Davis with disrespect and made no effort to provide due process as they shuffled her from jail to jail.
v. Donya Pierce 216. Plaintiff Donya Pierce is a 26-year-old African-American mother of two children. 217. Ms. Pierce is currently employed at Mount Carmel Rehabilitation Center. 218. In March 2014, officers of the St. Ann Police Department pulled Ms. Pierce over for a routine traffic stop. Ms. Pierce was driving a male passenger at the time. 219. The officers searched the vehicle without Ms. Pierce’s consent and found that the male passenger was in possession of marijuana. 220. Although the officers did not find any marijuana in Ms. Pierce’s possession, they arrested her for marijuana possession and took her to the St. Ann Jail. Officers at the St. Ann Jail informed Ms. Pierce that she owed a cash bond of more than $1,000. There was no bail hearing. Ms. Pierce was unable to afford to pay this bond amount, and thus was unable to secure her release. 221. The officers also informed Ms. Pierce that she had warrants for traffic-related offenses in St. Ann, Jennings, Hazelwood, University City, Pagedale, and Breckenridge Hills. 222. The St. Ann Jail held Ms. Pierce for three weeks. Each week, officers of the St. Ann Jail took Ms. Pierce to appear before a St. Ann Municipal Court judge. Each time, Ms. Pierce explained that she was innocent of the marijuana charge and pleaded for her release. Each time, the municipal court judge denied these pleas and sent her back to the St. Ann Jail. 223. The conditions at the St. Ann Jail were overcrowded and unsanitary. Although there were only eight beds per cell, roughly 20 women were assigned to each cell. Women who were ill and experiencing drug withdrawalsthe symptoms of which included vomiting,
44 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 45 of 79 PageID #: 304
flatulence, nausea, and disorientation, among many other thingswere placed in the same cells, which exacerbated the unsanitary conditions.
224. Inmates at the St. Ann Jail were not allowed to shower until they had been at the jail for a week. Further, there were no trashcans in the cells, so inmates regularly piled their trash in the corner. In addition to being unsanitary, these conditions created a pungent, unpleasant odor in the jail.
225. The officers at the St. Ann Jail refused to allow Ms. Pierce to use the phone. As a result, she lost her job and her house. In addition, Ms. Pierce’s son missed approximately four weeks of school and was held back a grade because no one was able to take him to school besides his mother. Further, Ms. Pierce almost lost custody of her son when one of his teachers called the Child & Family Services Agency when he abruptly stopped coming to school. Because Ms. Pierce could not use the phone, she was unable to call the school to explain to them what was happening.
226. After three weeks, the St. Ann Jail finally released Ms. Pierce. St. Ann subsequently dropped the charges against Ms. Pierce for possession of marijuana.
227. After the St. Ann Jail “released” Ms. Pierce, officers immediately transferred her to the Jennings Jail. The Jennings Jail held Ms. Pierce for three days in equally unsanitary conditions.
228. At the end of three days, Ms. Pierce paid $100 to secure her “release” from Jennings. However, Jennings then transferred Ms. Pierce to the Hazelwood Jail. Hazelwood detained Ms. Pierce for 12 hours. Ms. Pierce paid $200 to secure her “release” from Hazelwood. However, Hazelwood then transferred Ms. Pierce to the University City Jail, which held Ms.
45 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 46 of 79 PageID #: 305
Pierce for 12 hours before transferring her to the Pagedale Jail. Pagedale held Ms. Pierce for 12 hours before finally releasing her.
229. Each of these incarcerations were in connection with “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” warrants stemming from unpaid fines for traffic and other minor municipal violations. On no occasion did any of the jails or jail officers inquire into Ms. Pierce’s ability to pay, nor did they hold a bail hearing, provide her an attorney, or offer alternatives to the fine.
vi. Brittany Ellis 230. Brittany Ellis is a 26 year-old African-American woman. 231. Ms. Ellis is currently employed as a cook in the Lake St. Charles Retirement Home. 232. In July 2015, at approximately 9:30 p.m., Ms. Ellis was driving home from her job at the Family Dollar in her mother’s truck. 233. Officers of the St. Ann Police Department stopped Ms. Ellis. The officers informed Ms. Ellis that they were pulling her over because her license plate information did not match the truck she was driving. She tried to explain that she was driving her mother’s truck, but to no avail. 234. The officers arrested Ms. Ellis and had the truck she was driving towed. Ms. Ellis and her mother did not have the $500 required to release the truck from the towing company. As a result, Ms. Ellis’ mother lost the truck permanently. 235. The officers took Ms. Ellis to the St. Ann Jail. The St. Ann Jail held Ms. Ellis for approximately eight days. During that time, no St. Ann official informed Ms. Ellis of her bond amount (if any), the reason for her detention, or for how long she would be held.
46 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 47 of 79 PageID #: 306
236. The St. Ann Jail mistreated Ms. Ellis. Officers took Ms. Ellis’ glasses and refused to return them to her, even though she explained that she is legally blind.
237. Ms. Ellis was menstruating during the course of her incarceration at St. Ann. When she asked for sanitary napkins and/or tampons, a St. Ann correctional officer threw a sanitary napkin and tampons at her. Further, officers did not give her the privacy to go to the bathroom to handle her menstruation. As a result, Ms. Ellis was forced to change her pads in her cell in front of other inmates and correctional officers.
238. After eight days, the St. Ann Jail finally “released” Ms. Ellis and immediately transferred her to the St. Louis County Justice Center on a Hazelwood warrant for traffic-related offenses.
239. The St. Louis County Justice Center held Ms. Ellis for 12 days. During that time, officers at the Justice Center subjected Ms. Ellis to an extremely invasive search, forcing her to undress in front of a police officer who told her that she had “big breasts.” The officers also forced Ms. Ellis to spread her buttocks for the search, even though Ms. Ellis was in jail for a nonviolent, traffic-related offense.
240. After 12 days, the St. Louis County Justice Center “release” Ms. Ellis and immediately transferred her to the Ferguson Jail. The Ferguson Jail held Ms. Ellis for two days. During this time, officers at the Ferguson Jail did not inform her of the bond amount, ultimately releasing her and giving her a court date to appear in Ferguson Municipal Court.
241. In total, Ms. Ellis was incarcerated for 22 straight days for her inability to pay fines for traffic-related offenses. Because she was detained for so long, Ms. Ellis was terminated from her job at the Family Dollar (the store informed her that they were unable to hold her position for longer than a week).
47 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 48 of 79 PageID #: 307
242. Currently, Ms. Ellis has multiple traffic-related tickets assessed against her. In total, she owes $2,551 to six different municipalities in unpaid fines, court costs, surcharges, and interest.
243. Ms. Ellis is on payment plans for each of these municipalities. However, each plan requires monthly payments ranging from $50 to $100 per month. Ms. Ellis cannot afford to make these monthly payments. She works as a cook at the Lake St. Charles Retirement Home and receives $680 in income every two weeks. After paying her rent, utilities, car note, car insurance, and cell phone bill, she cannot afford to make all of her monthly payments, which total $300 or more a month.
244. Further, the grip of the municipal court system has stymied Ms. Ellis’ efforts to increase her income. Ms. Ellis recently applied for a job as an overnight cleaner at the Hollywood Casino. However, the Hollywood Casino will not hire Ms. Ellis because she has open arrest warrants for “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear.” Thus, Defendant’s unlawful revenue-generation scheme not only has confiscated Ms. Ellis’ liberty and any spare money she is able to scrounge together, it also has impeded her ability to get a higher paying job that might allow her to finally get out of the Defendant Municipalities’ debt.
vii. Keilee Fant 245. Keilee Fant is a 37-year-old African-American mother of nine who has been working as a Certified Nurse’s Assistant for twenty (20) years. 246. The Defendant Municipalities have jailed Ms. Fant more than seven (7) times in the past twenty (20) years for traffic tickets. She has served time in jails due to municipal charges from Velda City, Beverly Hills, Berkeley, Ferguson, Jennings, and Maryland Heights, among others.
48 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 49 of 79 PageID #: 308
247. Every time Ms. Fant was pulled over she was issued multiple citations in a single stop. This process repeated itself as she traveled through the various municipalities of the St. Louis region to the point where it became nearly impossible to pay all the fines.
248. Ms. Fant was the subject of numerous warrants for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” in municipal court in response to a ticket. Often, her absence was involuntary, caused by scheduling conflicts between the different municipalities. Ms. Fant had to choose which court appearance to attend, resulting in a warrant for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” at the others. In some instances, did not appear because of the fear spawned by Defendants’ tactics. She knew that many municipalities did not accept partial payment. Therefore, when Ms. Fant could not pay a ticket in full, she was afraid that she would be arrested if she appeared. And of course, she did not have a lawyer to advise her.
249. On one occasion, the day after Ms. Fant’s father passed away, a Berkeley officer and a Ferguson officer arrested her from her mother’s home in Berkeley, Missouri. Ms. Fant pleaded with the officers to allow her to make funeral arrangements. They refused. Instead, they arrested her and took her to the Ferguson jail. Her bond was set at $4,300. Ms. Fant’s mother could only scare up $4,200, which she attempted to pay the Ferguson authorities so that Ms. Fant could attend her father’s funeral. They rejected the offer. She missed her father’s funeral because she could not pay the full amount of the bond Ferguson arbitrarily set.
250. The official callousness and violations of Ms. Fant’s rights did not end there. She spent fifty eight (58) days in the Ferguson jail. The guards would not allow her to shower nor did the jail provide any hygiene products. Later, when she was transferred to the Florissant jail, officers harassed Ms. Fant about how she smelled.
49 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 50 of 79 PageID #: 309
251. In 2008, Ms. Fant was arrested after a traffic stop in Jennings that revealed a warrant for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear.” Jennings held Ms. Fant in jail for a week, then transferred her to Ferguson. Ferguson finally transferred her to Berkeley, where she remained for an additional two weeks. She received no credit for time served.
252. In 2012, Ms. Fant was jailed in Pine Lawn for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear.” The Pine Lawn Jail held Ms. Fant with other women in a room the size of a parking lot. The jail provided her a cup to get water from a spout directly above the toilet. The guards ignored the women, only acknowledging them if they asked for a phone to call someone about their bond. Several times, the guards left the women completely unsupervised in the room with a padlocked latch, locking the women in with no way out in case of an emergency.
253. Ms. Fant eventually paid her $400 bail and was released. 254. In 2013, Ms. Fant was driving with her children in the car when a police officer pulled her over in Bellefontaine Neighbors. When the officer ran her name he discovered that she had active warrants in St. Louis County. 255. Ms. Fant was taken to jail in Jennings. She paid a $200 bond for a warrant in Jennings, but the jail did not release her. Instead, Jennings transferred her into Velda City’s custody, still in the Jennings jail. When Ms. Fant asked the guards regarding her continued imprisonment, they replied that she was Velda City’s prisoner and they did not know anything. 256. Ms. Fant was held for Velda City for 48 hours. Still, Jennings did not release her, but instead transferred her into the custody of Bellefontaine. She paid a $100 bond and was transferred to Clayton, which held her for Normandy, until Maryland Heights picked her up and held her for an additional 72 hours before finally releasing her on recognizance. Ms. Fant was
50 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 51 of 79 PageID #: 310
informed that she would be assigned a court date, but a court date was never scheduled, leaving her in a perpetual warrant status.
viii. Meredith Walker 257. Meredith Walker is a 47-year-old African-American mother of two living in Florissant, Missouri. 258. In the last five years, Ms. Walker has been jailed on at least ten occasions by St. Louis municipalities for unpaid fines from traffic tickets and other minor municipal violations; she has paid over $15,000 in fees, court costs, and bond forfeitures, making her unable to provide for herself and her children; and she has lost her license—and consequently, her ability to find employment—because of her inability to afford to pay the fines. 259. Ms. Walker’s traffic tickets continue to plague her to this day, even though she has not been cited for a moving violation in over fifteen years. 260. At one point, Ms. Walker had warrants out for her arrest in eleven different municipalities, all of which stemmed from unpaid traffic tickets and charges for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” in connection with these unpaid traffic tickets. 261. On one occasion in the Village of Bel-Nor, officers of the Bel-Nor Police Department issued Ms. Walker eight tickets during a single traffic stop, even though her car was not moving at the time of the stop. 262. In the last five years, Ms. Walker has been jailed in St. Ann (on behalf of Normandy, Velda Village Hills, Calverton Park and Velda City), Florissant, Bel Nor, Moline Acres, Ferguson, St. Louis County, St. Louis City, and Pine Lawn. Each time, officers arrested Ms. Walker on warrants for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” that were issued in connection with unpaid traffic tickets that Ms. Walker could not afford to pay.
51 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 52 of 79 PageID #: 311
263. On almost all of these occasions, Ms. Walker experienced the so-called “munishuffle”: she was transferred from one municipal jail to another, paying bonds at each to secure her “release” to the next. A $500 bond was posted to secure Ms. Walker’s release from Normandy on February 7, 2012; a $500 bond was posted to secure Ms. Walker’s release from Calverton Park on November 1, 2012; a $100 bond was posted to secure Ms. Walker’s release from Velda Village Hills; a $500 bond was posted to secure Ms. Walker’s release from Normandy on February 4, 2014. Ms. Walker's mother or stepfather paid the bonds when they were able. If neither Ms. Walker or a relative could afford to pay bond, Ms. Walker remained in jail until jail officials (or the municipality on whose behalf she was held) decided to release her.
264. Ms. Walker has appeared in the Defendants municipal courts on multiple occasions, including the Normandy Municipal Court, the Calverton Municipal Court, the Velda Village Hills Municipal Court and the Velda City Municipal Court, among others. Not once has a municipal court judge inquired into her ability to pay, informed her of her right to an attorney, afforded her an attorney, or proposed alternatives to payment of a fine (such as community service).
265. Ms. Walker has tried to pay off her debts to the Defendant Municipalities, but simply cannot afford to do so. It is well known in the community that showing up at court without full payment will lead to incarceration. As a result, Ms. Walker feared that if she went to court without the money to pay her fine, she would immediately be placed in jail.
266. Ms. Walker has been unsuccessfully trying to pay off approximately $3,000 of fines over the last four years. On multiple occasions, the Defendants’ court clerks have told Ms. Walker that she resolved all her charges, only to discover more charges later. On other occasions, court clerks have failed to properly record payments made by Ms. Walker.
52 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 53 of 79 PageID #: 312
267. Ms. Walker’s inability to extricate herself from this cycle of debt and jailing imposed by the Defendant Municipalities’ municipal court systems has virtually destroyed Ms. Walker’s life.
268. Ms. Walker is unemployed and has been unable to find a new job because of her traffic record and because she does not have a valid license. Many of the positions for which she is otherwise qualified require a valid driver’s license to transport clients.
269. Ms. Walker has been forced to change her appearance, because she discovered that she was stopped by the Defendant Municipalities’ police officers more often when she had dreadlocks in her hair.
270. Ms. Walker does not have a valid driver’s license because she cannot afford to pay off all of her fines, costs, surcharges, and interest. As a result, Ms. Walker is forced to rely on family and friends to drive her to the store or to her son’s basketball games, placing strain on cherished relationships.
271. Ms. Walker has spent many holidays in jail for unpaid traffic tickets, missing time with family and friends.
272. Ms. Walker is unable to travel around the St. Louis area, in part because bus service in North County (where she lives) is unreliable, and in part because she is now terrified of the police.
273. Ms. Walker lost her car, which was impounded by Moline Acres. Ms. Walker was informed at the impound lot that there was no official record of the vehicle being towed, but that she could get it back for $300. She refused to pay the bribe, the vehicle was never returned, and she was never compensated for it.
ix. Ronald Tucker
53 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 54 of 79 PageID #: 313
274. Ronald Tucker is a 51-year-old African-American father of two adult children. 275. Mr. Tucker was laid off from his job at Casey’s Foods in June of 2016, and is currently unemployed. He works independently, doing odd jobs such as installing air conditioning units, repairing cars, and minor construction jobs. 276. In 2014, officers of the Cool Valley Police Department arrested Mr. Tucker for “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear” warrants stemming from unpaid traffic tickets. The underlying cause of the warrants were tickets for driving without a license and driving without insurance, dating as far back as 2005. 277. Prior to this arrest, Cool Valley had assessed Mr. Tucker $300 in fines and other charges for these traffic tickets, and had placed him on a payment plan that required $50 monthly payments. Mr. Tucker was employed at the time and was able to make the $50 payments until he only had $100 in outstanding fines and charges. 278. In 2012, Mr. Tucker lost his job. At that time, he went to the Cool Valley Municipal Court and attempted to work out a new payment plan with the court clerk. The clerk refused to make adjustments to Mr. Tucker’s payment plan and did not provide him with a court date to speak with the judge. Instead, the clerk insisted that he would need to make his payment on time or Cool Valley would issue a warrant for his arrest. 279. Mr. Tucker did not make his next payment due to his lack of income, and Cool Valley issued an arrest warrant for his failure to pay. 280. When Mr. Tucker was arrested in 2014, officers of the Cool Valley Police Department transported him to the holding facility in the Cool Valley Police Station.
54 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 55 of 79 PageID #: 314
281. The conditions in the Cool Valley holding facility were the worst that Mr. Tucker has ever experienced. The cells in which the officers held him and the other inmates were commonly referred to as the “dog cage.”
282. There were no toilets in the cell, so Mr. Tucker had to call one of the guards if he wished to be escorted to the bathroom. On more than one occasion, the guards would not respond, or would be away from the building for hours at a time, and Mr. Tucker was forced to use the bathroom on the floor of the cell.
283. Cool Valley did not provide Mr. Tucker and his fellow inmates with a toothbrush, toothpaste, soap, clean clothes, towel, or any other basic hygiene products. Cool Valley also failed to provide inmates access to a shower.
284. Cool Valley provided Mr. Tucker with two meals per day, which typically consisted of, ostensibly, old food from McDonalds. Cool Valley officers would place the food on a tray and slip it under the bars and into the cell, which made Mr. Tucker feel that he was being treated like a dog.
285. There were no beds in the jail cells, and officers usually would require Mr. Tucker and his fellow inmates to sleep handcuffed to a bench in the cell. This was made even more uncomfortable by the fact that the jail was extremely cold, and Cool Valley provided inmates with neither blankets nor extra clothes. To this day, Mr. Tucker often wears warm clothes, even when it is hot outside, out of fear that he will be jailed again.
286. Cool Valley held Mr. Tucker for three or four days before taking him to appear before a Cool Valley municipal judge.
287. In court, Mr. Tucker explained to the judge that he could not afford to make the $50 payments because he had lost his job. Mr. Tucker asked the judge to reduce his payments or
55 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 56 of 79 PageID #: 315
allow some other type of accommodation. The judge refused, telling Mr. Tucker that he had agreed to the previous payment plan and would have to find a way to make the payments. The judge did not conduct any other inquiry into Mr. Tucker’s ability to pay, nor did he appoint an attorney for Mr. Tucker or offer alternatives to payment of the fine, even though Mr. Tucker explained unequivocally that he could not afford to pay $50 per month.
288. The judge also imposed additional fines and fees for the late payments and for Mr. Tucker’s “failure to appear,” and told Mr. Tucker that he now owed a total of $385. Cool Valley released Mr. Tucker from custody and gave him a new payment date.
289. Once again, Mr. Tucker was unable to make the monthly payments due to his lack of income, and Cool Valley issued another warrant for his arrest.
290. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Tucker was able to secure legal representation through ArchCity Defenders. Cool Valley subsequently recalled the warrant, but Mr. Tucker continues to owe hundreds of dollars to the city in fines and fees.
x. Shilita Thomas 291. Shilita Thomas is a 29-year-old African-American single mother of one child. Ms. Thomas has been a Certified Nurse’s Assistant (CNA) for five years and has been employed at Cooperative Home Health Agency for the past one and a half years. 292. In 2012, officers of the Ferguson Police Department were dispatched to Ms. Thomas’ home to respond to a domestic dispute. The officers ran Ms. Thomas’ name and discovered that she had outstanding warrants for failure to appear in connection with unpaid traffic tickets in several municipalities.
56 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 57 of 79 PageID #: 316
293. Ms. Thomas was arrested and taken to jail in Ferguson and told that she could “bond out” if she posted a $300 bond. Ms. Thomas could not afford to pay the bond herself, so she enlisted the help of her family to raise the money.
294. However, Ms. Thomas was not released upon her family posting her bond; instead, she started a long series of transfers between municipalities on various outstanding warrants. She was first transferred to Berkeley, where Berkeley correctional officers demanded that she pay $725 in bond and placed a hold her driver’s license. Then she was transferred to Pine Lawn, where Pine Lawn correctional officers demanded another $300 to $400 and threatened to increase the bond amount “if they decided to.” She was then transferred to Jennings, where she was held on behalf of Dellwood and was required to pay another $150 to $200 bond.
295. Even after enduring all of this, she was not released. Instead, Ms. Thomas continued to be held in the Jennings Jail, now on behalf of Velda City for failure to appear charges stemming from unpaid traffic tickets. The Jennings correctional officers did not tell Ms. Thomas her bond amount. Ms. Thomas was finally “released” when her sister was able to pay a $100 bond. However, Ms. Thomas was not actually released from custody. Instead, she was transferred yet again to St. Louis County, where she was released without paying any bond.
296. Ms. Thomas never had the ability to post the numerous bonds required of her. Indeed, neither did her family, who was forced to resort to pawning their personal belongings and taking out title loans to afford the approximately $1,725 that she was forced to pay to secure her release from custody for unpaid traffic tickets. At no point did any municipality inquire into her ability to pay or offer any reasonable alternative to payment.
57 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 58 of 79 PageID #: 317
297. All told, Ms. Thomas was held in jail for approximately four (4) days at the various municipalities. She received one shower. She was often forced to sleep on the floor of a dirty, overcrowded cell with inadequate—or altogether absent—blankets to stave off the cold. She was served old, stale food.
298. Ms. Thomas was never brought before a judge during her approximately four-day detention at the various municipalities, nor was she offered, let alone informed of, her right to a lawyer.
299. To this day, Ms. Thomas’ child remembers witnessing and asks Ms. Thomas about the events of her mother’s arrest, even though she was only three years old at the time the events occurred.
xi. Mawoussime Adoboe 300. Mawoussime Adoboe is a 33-year-old mother of two children. Ms. Adoboe has been unemployed since 2012 and relies on welfare and social security to support herself. 301. On April 15, 2015, Ms. Adoboe was involved in a car accident. The police arrived at the scene of the car accident and conducted a field sobriety test, which police claimed Ms. Adoboe failed. The police officer cursed at her, called her a “bitch,” and said, “You know I don’t like you.” The St. John police arrested Ms. Adoboe for driving while intoxicated and took her to the St. John police station. The arresting police officer told other officers at the jail “not to give her a chance.” 302. The arresting police officer then took Ms. Adoboe to SSM Health DePaul Hospital - St. Louis, where she was administered a shot, although she did not know what it was for. She was also given a prescription for antibiotics, which the police officer filled before taking Ms. Adoboe to the St. Ann Jail on behalf of St. John.
58 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 59 of 79 PageID #: 318
303. Ms. Adoboe was held at the St. Ann Jail for eight days on $1,500 bond. Ms. Adoboe could not afford to pay the $1,500 bond amount, and therefore was not able to secure her release.
304. After several days, Ms. Adoboe’s family and friends were able to pool their financial resources to come up with the $1,500 for bond. However, when the father of Ms. Adoboe’s daughter attempted to post bond, St. Ann refused the payment without providing a reason.
305. Ms. Adoboe was never brought before a judge during her eight-day detention at the St. Ann jail, nor was she informed of her right to, or offered, a lawyer.
306. Defendant St. Ann’s jail refused to give Ms. Adoboe her medication for her serious chronic medical conditions.
307. The conditions in St. Ann Jail were filthy. Ms. Adoboe and other inmates requested supplies to clean their living space, but the guards refused. The cell in which Ms. Adoboe lived was designed to accommodate six people, but at times up to fifteen people were living in the cell. When there were more people than beds, inmates were forced to sleep on the floor.
308. Ms. Adoboe was allowed to shower only once every three days in a bathroom in filthy conditions.
309. St. Ann Jail Guards tossed cold food and inedible food onto the floor for the inmates to eat.
310. St. Ann Jail Guards were rude to inmates and indifferent to their needs, and called Ms. Adoboe “crazy” and an “African child” on multiple occasions.
59 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 60 of 79 PageID #: 319
311. One of Ms. Adoboe’s relatives attempted to come to the St. Ann Jail to visit her, but the guards never informed her and she was not allowed to meet with her relative.
312. Guards at the St. Ann Jail limited inmates’ use of phones. For example, if Ms. Adoboe placed a call and the person did not answer the first time, she was not allowed to call them back. The guards also limited the content of inmates’ phone calls, not allowing Ms. Adoboe to give any in-depth explanations to people on the phone.
313. After her “release” from the St. Ann Jail, Ms. Adoboe was transferred to the St. Charles Jail in connection with unpaid traffic tickets and “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” charges in St. Charles. Ms. Adoboe was detained in the St. Charles Jail for six days, at which point she was able to post $250 bond to secure her release.
314. Ms. Adoboe’s detention had significant collateral consequences in addition to the suffering Ms. Adoboe endured in St. Ann Jail. For example, while she was incarcerated, Ms. Adoboe’s children were shifted from one person’s care to another on three different occasions.
315. On at least one other occasion, Ms. Adoboe was detained in the St. Ann Jail for a speeding ticket in St. Ann. Ms. Adoboe was unable to afford the $500 bond and therefore was forced to spend a night in the St. Ann Jail.
xii. James Redmond III 316. James Redmond III is a 65-year-old African-American man. 317. In March of 2013, Mr. Redmond was pulled over by Wellston Police for running a stop sign. When officers ran his name and discovered that his license had been suspended, Mr. Redmond was arrested and transported to the Wellston jail. 318. Wellston officers told Mr. Redmond that he was being held on a $250 bond. Mr. Redmond, who had no income and was living in shelters at the time, told Wellston officers that
60 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 61 of 79 PageID #: 320
he did not have the money. The officers responded that he would have to call someone to get the money.
319. Mr. Redmond remained in the Wellston jail overnight until his stepfather was able to come and bond him out. His stepfather had to take the $250 out of his own rent money. Wellston officers released Mr. Redmond with a court date.
320. When Mr. Redmond appeared at the court date, the Wellston municipal judge assessed him $500 in fines for driving while suspended and running a stop sign. Mr. Redmond told the judge that he did not have any income and therefore had no way to pay the fines. The judge stated that this “did not make any difference” and put Mr. Redmond on a payment plan with $100 payments.
321. Mr. Redmond could not afford to make a payment due to his lack of income and Wellston issued another warrant for his arrest.
322. This warrant remained active for more than a year before Mr. Redmond was able to secure legal representation through ArchCity Defenders. When ArchCity Defenders began representing Mr. Redmond, he had ten (10) active warrants in seven (7) municipalities throughout St. Louis County, all due to his inability to pay fines and fees stemming from minor traffic offenses.
xiii. Veronica Murphy 323. Veronica Murphy is a 31-year-old single African-American mother of two young children living in St. Louis, Missouri. 324. Ms. Murphy single-handedly supports her two minor children on a very limited income.
61 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 62 of 79 PageID #: 321
325. Ms. Murphy has been jailed in the St. Ann Jail “so many times [she] can’t remember” in connection with warrants issued by Bel-Ridge, Normandy, and St. Ann, among others. The warrants issued by Bel-Ridge initially stemmed from minor traffic infractions issued prior to 2009. As of this filing, Defendant St. Ann continues to refuse to recall its own warrant against Ms. Murphy for minor alleged municipal infractions until fines are “paid in full.”
326. In April 2009, Ms. Murphy departed the University of Missouri-St. Louis campus after a college class to pick up her son—who was five years old at the time—at his school in Normandy, Missouri. She never arrived at the school because officers of the Normandy Police Department stopped Ms. Murphy just one block away.
327. The Normandy Police informed Ms. Murphy that they stopped her pursuant to an alleged warrant from the State of Texas. The Normandy Police arrested Ms. Murphy and towed her vehicle to an impound lot.
328. The two young Murphy children—ages three and five at the time—sat at their schools awaiting their mother until the schools were able to contact members of Ms. Murphy’s family to care for them.
329. The Normandy Police took Ms. Murphy to their precinct, fingerprinted and booked her, and notified Texas of her arrest. The State of Texas informed the Normandy Police that Ms. Murphy was not wanted for extradition.
330. Instead of releasing Ms. Murphy, Normandy Police checked their computer system and determined Ms. Murphy had an outstanding warrant from Bel-Ridge. The Normandy Police then transported Ms. Murphy to the St. Ann Jail.
331. At the St. Ann Jail, Ms. Murphy endured what she now describes as “the worst memories of [her] life” in conditions most inhumane: St. Ann officials (1) forced Ms. Murphy to
62 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 63 of 79 PageID #: 322
wear an orange jumpsuit “like [she] was in prison”; and (2) provided inadequate food sometimes consisting of only a honey bun and a packaged pot pie for an entire day—“all because [she is] a single mom who can’t pay a traffic ticket,” as Ms. Murphy attests.
332. Ms. Murphy was held in St. Ann Jail for two weeks. 333. During this time period (which included her birthday), the Murphy children were left motherless while Defendant St. Ann jailed Ms. Murphy on behalf of Bel-Ridge simply because she could not afford to pay the bond amount set by Bel-Ridge, which, on information and belief, exceeded $500. 334. Once released from St. Ann Jail, Ms. Murphy could not afford to pay to retrieve her vehicle from impound; in fact, Ms. Murphy was never able to afford the impound fees to retrieve her car, and she ultimately lost the 1999 Chevy Cavalier which she once owned outright. 335. Since her initial two-week incarceration in 2009, Defendants have repeatedly arrested Ms. Murphy based on her inability to pay fines and alleged “Failure to Appear” charges, including a most recent incarceration on Bel-Ridge’s warrant in May 2014. 336. Despite obtaining legal representation from ArchCity Defenders to address her myriad municipal charges, Ms. Murphy still faces imminent arrest in one or more of the Defendant Municipalities as of the filing of this Complaint. 337. Specifically, in April 2016, St. Ann issued a form recommendation sheet to notify Ms. Murphy that her fines total as much as $620.00 and—using a literal rubber stamp—that “WARRANT WILL REMAIN ACTIVE UNTIL PAID IN FULL.” 338. Then, in June 2016, when ArchCity Defenders requested that St. Ann recall the arrest warrant, St. Ann denied the recall request.
63 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 64 of 79 PageID #: 323
339. Because Ms. Murphy cannot foreseeably afford to pay off St. Ann, this warrant will remain active in perpetuity while Ms. Murphy continues to live in fear of the next time she is pulled over by police in the St. Louis region. F. Class Allegations
340. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, for the purpose of asserting the claims alleged in this Complaint on a common basis.
341. A class action is a superior means, and the only practicable means, by which Plaintiffs and unknown Class members can challenge the Defendants’ unlawful debt-collection scheme.
342. This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a Class action pursuant to Rule 23(a)(1)-(4), Rule 23(b)(2), and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
343. This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of those provisions.
344. Plaintiffs propose two Classes: a Declaratory and Injunctive Class and a Damages Class.
345. The Declaratory and Injunctive Class is defined as: All persons who currently owe or who will incur debts to the Defendants from fines, fees, costs, or surcharges arising from cases in the Defendants’ courts.
346. The Damages Class is defined as: All persons who, from August 9, 2011, until the present, were held in jail by or on behalf of one or more of the Defendants because of the persons’ non-payment of a monetary sum required by one or more of the Defendants as a result of the individuals’ inability to pay.
1. Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)
64 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 65 of 79 PageID #: 324
347. Over the past five years, thousands of people have owed and currently owe the Defendants money from old traffic tickets and other minor municipal offenses. Pursuant to Defendants’ policies and practices, Defendants have placed thousands of people, who have indicated that they are too poor to pay their debts in total, on payment plans that are arbitrary, exorbitant, and inconsistent with the debtors’ ability to pay. All of these people are currently being threatened with arrest and jailing if they do not make the payments in the amount or frequency purportedly required by the Defendants.
348. The Defendants have kept hundreds of people in their jails for non-payment in each of the past five years. The Defendants retain, and are required by law to retain, records of these instances.
349. The Defendants followed and follow materially the same debt-collection policies, practices, and procedures to accomplish the jailing of the Class members. For example, pursuant to the Defendants’ policies and practices, those kept in jail by the Defendants for non-payment did not receive meaningful inquiries into their ability to pay as required by federal and Missouri law. Pursuant to Defendants’ policies, Defendants made no determinations of indigence, ability to pay hearings, or evaluations of alternatives to incarceration, and the Defendants provided none of the relevant state and federal protections for debtors. Nor were those jailed by the Defendants provided adequate counsel to represent them.
350. Those who still owe the Defendants debt payments or who will incur such debts will be subjected to the same ongoing policies and practices absent the relief sought in this Complaint.
2. Commonality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). 351. The relief sought is common to all members of the Injunctive and Damages
65 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 66 of 79 PageID #: 325
Classes, and common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Classes. The
Plaintiffs seek relief concerning whether the Defendants’ policies, practices, and procedures
violated their rights and relief mandating the Defendants to change their policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Plaintiffs’ rights will be protected in the future.
352. Among the most important, but not the only, common questions of fact are:
a. Whether the Defendants have a policy and practice of keeping people in their jails who owe money on old judgments unless and until they can pay a monetary sum;
b. Whether the Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to conduct meaningful inquiries into the ability of a person to pay before jailing the person for non-payment;
c. Whether the Defendants provide notice to debtors that their ability to pay will be a relevant issue at the proceedings at which they are jailed or kept in jail and whether the Defendants make findings concerning ability to pay and alternatives to incarceration;
d. Whether the Defendants provide adequate legal representation to those jailed for unpaid debts in proceedings that result in their incarceration;
e. Whether Defendants’ employees and agents have a policy and practice of threatening debtors and families of debtors with incarceration for unpaid debts without informing them of their rights;
f. Whether the Defendants have a policy and practice of issuing and executing warrants for the arrest of debtors despite lacking probable cause that they have committed any offense and without any notice or opportunity to be heard concerning their ability to pay or the validity of the debt;
g. Whether the Defendants’ above-described policies and practices are part of a common plan or scheme between and among the Defendant Municipalities;
h. Whether that common scheme or plan seeks to extort funds from poor residents of the St. Louis area by ensnaring them in an escalating spiral of indebtedness and imprisonment; and
66 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 67 of 79 PageID #: 326
i. Whether Defendants’ policies and practices discriminate on the basis of race or other impermissible factors.
353. Among the most important common question of law are:
a. Whether keeping people in jail solely because they cannot afford to make a monetary payment is lawful;
b. Whether people are entitled to a meaningful inquiry into their ability to pay before being jailed by the Defendants for nonpayment of debts;
c. Whether people who cannot afford to pay the Defendants are entitled to the consideration of alternatives to incarceration before being jailed for non-payment of debts;
d. Whether people are entitled to adequate legal representation in debt-collection proceedings initiated and litigated by Defendants prosecutors that result in their incarceration if they cannot afford an attorney;
e. Whether the Defendants may jail, threaten to jail, and use other harsh debt-collection measures (such as ordering payment of significant portions of a person’s public assistance benefits) against debtors who cannot afford immediately to pay the Defendants in full;
f. Whether the Defendants may arrest people based solely on their non-payment without any probable cause that they have committed any willful conduct or other offense and without notice and an opportunity to be heard concerning legal predicates for a valid detention, such as their ability to pay and the validity of the debt.
354. These common legal and factual questions arise from one central scheme and set
of policies and practices: the Defendants’ enormously profitable traffic and ordinance debt
collection system. The Defendants operate this scheme openly and in materially the same
manner every day, and all of the ancillary factual questions about how that scheme operates are
common to all members of the Classes, as well as the resulting legal questions about whether
that scheme is unlawful. The material components of the scheme do not vary from Class
member to Class member, and the resolution of these legal and factual issues will determine
67 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 68 of 79 PageID #: 327
whether all of the members of the class are entitled to the constitutional relief that they seek. 3. Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). 355. The named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the
Classes and Subclasses respectively, and they have the same interests in this case as all other members of the Classes that they represent. Each of them suffered injuries from the failure of the Defendants to comply with the basic constitutional provisions detailed below. The answer to whether the Defendants’ scheme of policies and practices is unconstitutional will determine the claims of the named Plaintiffs and every other Class member.
356. If the named Plaintiffs succeed in their claims that the Defendants’ policies and practices concerning debt collection for fines, fees, costs, and surcharges violate the law in the ways alleged in each claim of the Complaint, then that ruling will likewise benefit every other member of the Injunctive and Damages Classes.
4. Adequacy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). 357. The named Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Classes because they are members of the Classes and because their interests coincide with, and are not antagonistic to, those of the Classes. There are no known conflicts of interest among Class members, all of whom have a similar interest in vindicating the constitutional rights to which they are entitled. 358. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Arnold & Porter LLP, a firm with experience litigating complex civil rights matters in federal court and extensive knowledge of both the details of the Defendants’ scheme and the relevant constitutional and statutory law. Plaintiffs are also represented by attorneys from ArchCity Defenders, who have extensive experience with the functioning of the entire municipal court system through their representation
68 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 69 of 79 PageID #: 328
of numerous impoverished people in the St. Louis area.19
359. The efforts of Plaintiffs’ counsel have so far included extensive investigation over
a period of months, including numerous interviews with witnesses, Defendants’ employees,
Defendants’ jail inmates, families, attorneys practicing in the Defendants’ Municipal Courts,
community members, statewide experts in the functioning of Missouri municipal courts, and
national experts in constitutional law, debt collection, bankruptcy law, criminal law, and forced
labor.
360. Counsel have also observed numerous courtroom hearings in the Defendant
Municipalities and in other municipalities across the region in order to compile a detailed
understanding of state law and practices as they relate to federal constitutional requirements.
Counsel have studied the way that these systems function in other cities in order to investigate
the wide array of options in practice for municipalities.
361. As a result, counsel have devoted enormous time and resources to becoming
19 ArchCity Defenders is a non-profit public interest law firm based in Saint Louis. It has represented the poor and homeless in cases involving the Municipal Defendants for the past five years and is an expert on the ways in which the Defendants’ illegal practices and policies make and keep people poor. ArchCity Defenders has recently brought class actions in the Eastern District of Missouri restricting the use of chemical munitions on peaceful protesters, is cocounsel on two federal class actions alleging the operation of debtors’ prisons in Ferguson and Jennings, Missouri, two additional class actions ending cash bail, and an additional series of state class action suits alleging the imposition of illegal fees and fines in various municipal courts in the St. Louis County region. See Templeton v. Dotson, 4:14-cv-01019; Jenkins et al. v. City of Jennings, 15-cv-252-CEJ (E.D. Mo. 2015); Fant et al. v. City of Ferguson, 15-cv-253-AGF (E.D. Mo. 2015); Powell v. City of St. Ann 4:15-cv-840 (E.D. Mo. 2015); Pierce v. City of Velda City, 4:15-CV-570 (E.D. Mo. 2015); White v. City of Pine Lawn, 14SL-CC04194 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Dec. 2014); Pruitt v. City of Wellston, 14SL-CC04192 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Dec. 2014); Lampkin v. City of Jennings, 14SL-CC04207 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Dec. 2014); Wann v. City of St. Louis, 1422-CC10272 (St. Louis City Cir. Ct., Dec. 2014); Reed v. City of Ferguson, 14SL-CC04195 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Dec. 2014); Eldridge v. City of St. John, 15SL-00456 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Feb. 2015); Watkins v. City of Florissant, 16SL-CC00165 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Jan. 2016). ArchCity Defenders also published an extensive report detailing these practices and policies in the cities of Bel-Ridge, Ferguson, and Florissant in August of 2014. The report is available at http://www.archcitydefenders.org.
69 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 70 of 79 PageID #: 329
intimately familiar with the Defendants’ scheme and with all of the relevant state and federal laws and procedures that can and should govern it. Counsel also have developed relationships with many of the individuals and families most victimized by the Defendants’ practices.
362. The interests of the members of the Class will be fairly and adequately protected by the Plaintiffs and their attorneys.
5. Rule 23(b)(2) 363. Class action status is appropriate because the Defendants, through the policies, practices, and procedures that make up their traffic and ordinance debt-collection scheme, have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Declaratory and Injunctive Classes. 364. A declaration that people in the Defendant Municipalities cannot be held in jail solely because they cannot afford to make a monetary payment will apply to each Class member. 365. Similarly, a determination that Class members are entitled, as a matter of federal law, to a meaningful inquiry into their ability to pay and an evaluation of alternatives to incarceration before they are jailed by the Defendants for non-payment will apply to each Class member. 366. The same applies to rulings on the other claims, including: that Class members are entitled to representation by counsel at proceedings initiated and litigated by Defendants’ prosecutors in connection with which they are jailed; that the Defendants cannot imprison Class members for debts; that the Defendants cannot collect debts from Class members in a manner that violates and evades all of the relevant protections for other judgment debtors; and that the Defendants cannot issue and execute arrest warrants for traffic debtors without probable cause that they have committed an offense and without notice or a hearing prior to the deprivation of
70 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 71 of 79 PageID #: 330
their liberty. 367. Injunctive relief compelling the Defendants to comply with these constitutional
rights will similarly protect each member of the Class from being again subjected to the Defendants’ unlawful policies and practices with respect to the debts that they still owe and protect those who will incur such debts in the future from the same unconstitutional conduct. Therefore, declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a whole is appropriate.
6. Rule 23(b)(3) 368. Class treatment under Rule 23(b)(3) is also appropriate because the common questions of law and fact overwhelmingly predominate in this case. This case turns, for every Plaintiff, on what the Defendants’ policies and practices are and on whether those policies are lawful. 369. The common questions of law and fact listed above are dispositive questions in the case of every member of the Classes and Subclasses. The question of liability can therefore be determined on a class-wide basis. Class-wide treatment of liability is a far superior method of determining the content and legality of the Defendants’ policies and practices than individual suits by hundreds or thousands of Defendants’ residents. The question of damages will also be driven by class-wide determinations. 370. To the extent that individual damages will vary, they will vary depending in large part on the amount of time that a person was unlawfully jailed. Determining damages for individual Class members can thus typically be handled in a ministerial fashion based on easily verifiable records of the length of unlawful incarceration. If need be, individual hearings on Class-member specific damages based on special circumstances can be held after Class-wide
71 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 72 of 79 PageID #: 331
liability is determined—a method far more efficient than the wholesale litigation of hundreds or thousands of individual lawsuits.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I
Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment — Imprisonment For Inability To Pay (Against All Defendants)
371. The preceding paragraphs 1-370 are incorporated herein by reference. 372. The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibit imprisoning a person for failure to pay money owed to the government if that person is indigent and unable to pay. 373. The Municipal Defendants imprisoned and/or threatened to imprison each of the Plaintiffs when they could not afford to pay debts allegedly owed for traffic and other minor offenses without conducting any inquiry into their ability to pay and without conducting any inquiry into alternatives to imprisonment, as required by the United States Constitution. At any moment, a person with financial resources in the Plaintiffs’ positions could have paid a sum of cash and been released from jail. 374. The Municipal Defendants maintained and continue to maintain a policy and practice of (i) imprisoning, or threatening to imprison, people, including Plaintiffs, when they cannot afford to pay the debts allegedly owed from traffic and other minor offenses, and (ii) keeping people, including Plaintiffs, in jail unless and until they are able to pay arbitrarily determined (and constantly shifting) sums of money. 375. The Municipal Defendants actions violated, and continue to violate, Plaintiffs’ rights, and the rights of others similarly situated, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
72 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 73 of 79 PageID #: 332
376. As a direct result of the Defendants’ unlawful practices, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have suffered extensive damages, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, anxiety, anguish, feeling of unjust treatment, fear, and lost earnings.
COUNT II Violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments—Failure to Provide Adequate Counsel
(Against All Defendants) 377. The preceding paragraphs 1-376 are incorporated herein by reference. 378. The Defendant Municipalities violated Plaintiffs’ rights, and the rights of others similarly situated, to the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, have been and continue to be imprisoned by the Defendant Municipalities in connection with debtcollection proceedings in which those people jailed are not afforded counsel. 379. The Defendant Municipalities’ policy and practice of not providing adequate counsel at hearings in which indigent people are ordered to be imprisoned in the Defendants’ jails for unpaid debts (which are, in turn, based on payment plans arising from traffic and other violations at which the jailed individuals also were unrepresented), violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 380. As a direct result of the Defendants’ unlawful practices, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have suffered extensive damages, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, anxiety, anguish, feeling of unjust treatment, fear, and lost earnings.
COUNT III Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment—Indefinite and Arbitrary Detention
(Against All Defendants) 381. The preceding paragraphs 1-380 are incorporated herein by reference.
73 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 74 of 79 PageID #: 333
382. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits incarcerating people indefinitely and without adequate procedural protections. The Municipal Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of jailing the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated without any meaningful legal process through which they can challenge their detention by keeping them confined in the Defendants’ jails unless and until they can make arbitrarily and inconsistently established cash payments, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
383. As a direct result of the Defendants’ unlawful practices, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have suffered extensive damages, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, anxiety, anguish, feeling of unjust treatment, fear, and lost earnings.
COUNT IV Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments — Issuance of Invalid Warrants
(Against All Defendants) 384. The preceding paragraphs 1-383 are incorporated herein by reference. 385. The Defendants’ policy and practice is to issue and serve arrest warrants against those who have not paid their debt from old judgments in traffic and other minor cases. These warrants are sought, issued, and served without any inquiry into the person’s ability to pay even when the Defendants have prior knowledge that the person is impoverished and unable to pay the debts or possesses other valid defenses. 386. These warrants are regularly sought, issued, and served without any finding of probable cause that the person has committed the elements of any offense. The Defendants choose to pursue warrants instead of issuing summons even when it has spoken to people on the phone or in person and has the opportunity to notify them to appear in court.
74 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 75 of 79 PageID #: 334
387. The Defendants enforce a policy of allowing wealthy residents or residents who can afford to hire an attorney to remove their warrants but refusing to remove warrant. Moreover, the Defendants’ policy and practice of not presenting arrestees in court or unreasonably delaying presentment for days or weeks for no legitimate reason is unlawful.
388. These practices violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and result in a deprivation of fundamental liberty without adequate due process. Defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
389. As a direct result of the Defendants’ unlawful practices, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have suffered extensive damages, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, anxiety, anguish, feeling of unjust treatment, fear, and lost earnings.
COUNT V Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment — Threats of Incarceration to Collect Debts
(Against All Defendants) 390. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-389 above. 391. The United States Supreme Court has held that, when a government seeks to recoup costs of prosecution from indigent defendants—for example, the cost of appointed counsel—it may not take advantage of its position to impose unduly restrictive methods of collection solely because the debt is owed to the government and not to a private creditor. 392. By incarcerating the Plaintiffs and threatening to incarcerate them, the Defendants take advantage of their control over the machinery of the penal and police systems to deny debtors the statutory protections that every other debtor may invoke against a private creditor. This coercive policy and practice constitutes invidious discrimination and violates the fundamental principles of equal protection of the laws. Defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
75 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 76 of 79 PageID #: 335
393. As a direct result of the Defendants’ unlawful practices, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have suffered extensive damages, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, anxiety, anguish, feeling of unjust treatment, fear, and lost earnings.
COUNT VI Conspiracy to Commit Civil Rights Violations (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
(Against All Defendants) 394. The preceding paragraphs 1-393 are incorporated herein by reference. 395. The Defendant Municipalities, through their police departments, municipal court systems, city prosecuting attorneys’ offices, and various other agents, have engaged in a deliberate and coordinated scheme between and amongst the Municipalities that violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, and the constitutional rights of others that are similarly situated. 396. The Defendant Municipalities deliberately coordinated arrests, deprivations of due process, denials of the right to counsel and unlawful detentions that violated the constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated. 397. Each Defendant Municipality knowingly and intentionally acted in furtherance of this scheme, including, but not limited to, by arresting and/or holding individuals on behalf of other Defendant Municipalities, by inducing payment of fines improperly imposed by another Defendant Municipality via strong-arm tactics against individuals in their custody, by enforcing warrants issued by other Defendant Municipalities that the Defendant Municipality knew or should have known was invalid, and by passing information between the Defendant Municipalities in facilitation of these violations. 398. The conspiracy between and among the Defendant Municipalities caused Plaintiffs and those similarly situated to be deprived of their constitutional rights in the manners described in the preceding paragraphs.
76 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 77 of 79 PageID #: 336
399. Defendants are liable for this conspiracy and its harms under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
400. As a direct result of the Defendants’ unlawful practices, Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated have suffered extensive damages, including, but not limited to, pain and
suffering, anxiety, anguish, feeling of unjust treatment, fear, and lost earnings.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court issue the following relief:
a. Certification of the Declaratory and Injunctive Class and Subclasses and the Damages Class, as defined above;
b. A declaratory judgment that Defendants violated, and continue to violate, Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights by imprisoning them for their inability to pay a debt without conducting any meaningful inquiry into their ability to pay or into any alternatives to incarceration;
c. A declaratory judgment that Defendants violated, and continue to violate, Plaintiffs’ rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments by imprisoning them without appointing adequate counsel at the proceedings that led to their incarceration;
d. A declaratory judgment that Defendants violated, and continue to violate, Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights by holding them indefinitely and arbitrarily in jail independent of any valid legal process;
e. A declaratory judgment that Defendants violated, and continue to violate, Plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by issuing and serving arrest warrants without probable cause to believe that the elements of an offense had been committed, with unreasonable delay prior to presentment, and without providing pre-deprivation of liberty process where such process is easily available to the Defendants;
f. An order and judgment permanently enjoining Defendants from enforcing the above-described unconstitutional policies and practices against Plaintiffs and others similarly situated;
g. A declaratory judgment that the Defendant City violated Plaintiffs’ equal protection rights by imposing harsh debt collection measures not imposed on debtors whose creditors are private entities
77 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 78 of 79 PageID #: 337

h. A judgment compensating the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for the damages that they suffered as a result of the Defendants’ unconstitutional and unlawful conduct; and
i. An order and judgment granting reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 18 U.S.C. § 1595, and any other relief this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: November 30, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

By:Edward J. Hall Edward J. Hall (MBE #0012692IA) Thomas B. Harvey (MBE #61734MO) Michael-John Voss (MBE #61742MO) Blake A. Strode (MBE #68422MO) Nathaniel Carroll (MBE #67988MO) Brendan Roediger, Of Counsel (MBE #6287213IL) ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, INC. 1210 Locust Street Saint Louis, MO 63103 Tel: (855) 724-2489 Fax: (314) 925-1307 ehall@archcitydefenders.org tharvey@archcitydefenders.org mjvoss@archcitydefenders.org bstrode@archcitydefenders.org ncarroll@archcitydefenders.org broedige@slu.edu
Robert Weiner (pro hac vice motion to be filed) David B. Bergman (pro hac vice motion to be filed) ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Tel: (202) 942-5000 Fax: (202 942-5999 Robert.Weiner@aporter.com David.Bergman@aporter.com
S. Zachary Fayne (pro hac vice motion to be filed) ARNOLD & PORTER LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111
78 of 79

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 50 Filed: 11/30/16 Page: 79 of 79 PageID #: 338 Tel: (415) 471-3114 Fax: (415) 471-3400 Zachary.Fayne@aporter.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs
79 of 79

 
 Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 78 Filed: 04/24/17 Page: 1 of 8 PageID #: 548

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

QUINTON M. THOMAS, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

) Case No. 4:16 CV 1302 RWS

)

CITY OF ST. ANN, et al.,

)

)

Defendants,

)

ORDER

Plaintiffs in this action filed a class action amended complaint against

thirteen municipalities. The amended complaint alleges that Defendants had

policies and practices of encouraging their police forces to issue tickets to

Plaintiffs for minor infractions, imposing sizable fines for these infractions,

detaining Plaintiffs in municipal jails for failing to pay fines, and generally using

the municipalities’ prosecutorial and law enforcement powers to unconstitutionally

coerce citizens to pay fines to raise city revenues. Plaintiffs also allege that the

defendant municipalities failed to provide counsel when required and issued

invalid warrants all in violation of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs assert

that Defendants acted as part of a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs of their civil

rights.

Defendants have all moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 78 Filed: 04/24/17 Page: 2 of 8 PageID #: 549
Plaintiffs’ claims against the various defendant municipalities involve multiple separate incidents and actions over a five-year (or greater period). Because I find that the amended complaint fails to state a claim for conspiracy, I will dismiss the claims against all but one Defendant. The first named defendant, City of St. Ann, will remain as a defendant in this matter. Plaintiffs’ claims against the remaining Defendants will be dismissed without prejudice. I will order Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint against Defendant City of St. Ann and to limit their claims to actions taken by City of St. Ann.
Legal Standard When ruling on a motion to dismiss, I must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and view them in light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff’s factual allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Id. at 555.
2

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 78 Filed: 04/24/17 Page: 3 of 8 PageID #: 550
Discussion The amended complaint’s first twenty-seven pages set out background allegations against the defendant municipalities asserting that their revenue raising tactics of tickets, fines, and confinement were unconstitutional and disproportionately impacted the poorest citizens of those communities. The amended complaint asserts that these citizens are the least able to avoid the alleged coercive revenue raising techniques employed by the municipalities. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint sets out six counts including Court I which asserts a claim for imprisoning Plaintiffs for an inability to pay fines and penalties in violation of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Count II asserts a claim under the 14th and 6th Amends. for failing to provide counsel for indigent Plaintiffs who are ordered to be imprisoned for unpaid fines. Count III asserts a claim under the 14th Amend. for the indefinite and arbitrary detention of Plaintiffs. Count IV asserts a claim under the 4th and 14th Amends. for the issuance of invalid arrest warrants against Plaintiffs. Count V asserts a claim under the 14th Amend. for threatening Plaintiffs with incarceration in an effort to collect fines and penalties. Count VI asserts a conspiracy claim against Defendants alleging that they acted in a coordinated scheme to violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. All Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ conspiracy claim. To assert a
3

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 78 Filed: 04/24/17 Page: 4 of 8 PageID #: 551
conspiracy claim a plaintiff must make “allegations of specific facts tending to show a ‘meeting of the minds’ among the alleged conspirators.” Murray v. Lene, 595 F.3d 868, 870 (8th Cir. 2010). In addition, a plaintiff’s factual allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
In support of their conspiracy claim Plaintiffs assert that all the defendant municipalities contracted with the City of St. Ann to house detainees in its jail. These individual contracts with a jail do not create an inference that the municipalities had a meeting of minds to commit unconstitutional acts on Plaintiffs. It is not unusual for police departments to contract with jails to hold detainees. Plaintiffs also assert that the defendant municipality police departments arrested Plaintiffs based on arrest warrants issued by other municipalities. This too is a common practice among all police departments. Similarly, the allegation that a prosecuting attorney for one defendant municipality may act as a judge for another defendant municipality does not establish a claim of conspiratorial meeting of minds between the municipalities
I find that Plaintiffs’ conspiracy claim is based on speculation. Plaintiffs failed to assert specific factual allegations necessary to infer a meeting of minds to show that Defendants acted in a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights.
4

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 78 Filed: 04/24/17 Page: 5 of 8 PageID #: 552
Based on that finding I will dismiss Plaintiffs’ conspiracy claim in Count VI of the amended complaint. Because Plaintiffs’ remaining claims against Defendants are based on separate activities, by separate actors, over the course of several years, I find that Defendants have been improperly joined in one action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. As a result, I will order that this case proceed only against the City of St. Ann and the claims against the other Defendants in this case will be dismissed without prejudice.
As this case is proceeding only against the City of St. Ann, I will order Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint (the second amended complaint) limiting their claims to those against the City of St. Ann. As guidance to the filing of that ameneded complaint, I briefly address the City of St. Ann’s motion to dismiss the present complaint.
The City of St. Ann moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rules 8(a)(2), 10(b), and 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Those rules in essence state that the claims of a complaint should be simply set out, in numbered paragraphs, each limited to a single set of circumstances, and that redundant, immaterial, or impertinent matters should be omitted. City of St. Ann asserts that the opening twenty-seven pages of the amended complaint contain immaterial and inflammatory information. It also asserts that many paragraphs in the complaint
5

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 78 Filed: 04/24/17 Page: 6 of 8 PageID #: 553
contain compound allegations making it difficult for City of St. Ann to answer the complaint.
Counsel for City of St. Ann raised the same grounds to dismiss a similar complaint filed by Plaintiffs’ counsel in Kant v. City of Ferguson, Missouri, 4:15 CV 253 AGF (E.D. Mo. 2005). United States District Judge Audrey Fleissig rejected those grounds to dismiss. I reach the same conclusion in this case. The background information provided at the beginning of the amended complaint simply presents a general setting to place Defendants’ alleged actions in context. Moreover, Plaintiffs allegations in the individual paragraphs are limited, as far as practicable, to discrete sets of circumstances, which would allow a defendant to be able to frame a responsive pleading. Nor do I find that any of the language in the amended complaint is so redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous to warrant striking sections of the pleading. That being said, when Plaintiffs file their amended complaint against City of St. Ann, they shall limit their allegations and claims to those directly related to the City of St. Ann’s actions and not the actions of other municipalities.
City of St. Ann also moves to dismiss the majority of Plaintiffs’ claims asserting that the claims are directed solely at the actions of municipal judges and their staff. Plaintiffs’ claims are not so limited. In the body of Plaintiffs’ amended
6

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 78 Filed: 04/24/17 Page: 7 of 8 PageID #: 554
complaint they allege that the City of St. Ann had a custom and policy of directing their police officers to issue fine laden citations for minor infractions in an effort to raise city revenues. Plaintiffs also allege that the City of St. Ann encouraged the prosecution and incarceration of indigent Plaintiffs who were unable to pay fines, among other claims. In filing their amended complaint against the City of St. Ann, Plaintiffs should clearly restate those claims in each count of their complaint.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiffs conspiracy claim [54, 57, 59, and 60] are GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants City of Edmunson, City of Normandy, City of Cool Valley, City of Velda City, City of Beverly Hills, City of Pagedale, City of Calverton Park, City of St. John, City of Bel-Ridge, City of Wellston, City of Velda Village Hills, and City of Bellefontaine Neighbors are DISMISSED without prejudice as being improperly joined in this action.
7

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 78 Filed: 04/24/17 Page: 8 of 8 PageID #: 555
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint directed solely at Defendant City of St. Ann no later than May 26, 2017.

Dated this 24th day of April, 2017.

_____________________________ RODNEY W. SIPPEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8

 
 Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 1 of 70 PageID #: 670

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

)

QUINTON M. THOMAS; ROELIF EARL )

CARTER; BRADLEY JILES; ANGELA )

DAVIS; MEREDITH WALKER;

)

BRITTANY ELLIS; DONYA PIERCE; )

MAWOUSSIME ADOBOE ;

)

VERONICA MURPHY; CHARLES

)

RILEY, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CITY OF ST. ANN,

)

)

Defendant.

)

___________________________________ )

Case No. 4:16-cv-1302 (Jury Trial Demanded)

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION
1. The City of St. Ann, through its police department, municipal court system, prosecuting attorney’s office, and jail, has terrorized the named Plaintiffs and many thousands of others through a deliberate policy established and implemented to fill the city’s coffers by extorting money from thousands of poor, disproportionately African-American people in the St. Louis region, creating a modern-day police state and debtors’ prison scheme that has no place in American society.
2. The scheme reflects an extraordinary abuse of governmental authority, starting with the over-policing of low-income communities of color and the issuance of excessive citations for traffic and other minor municipal code violations, followed by arbitrary fines, penalties, surcharges, and interest charges that pile up like debts to a loan-shark, arrest warrants

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 2 of 70 PageID #: 671
auto-generated without good cause or even a semblance of due process, and imprisonment— imposed without assistance of counsel—in squalid debtors’ prisons. This unconstitutional revenue-generation scheme disproportionately targets African-American residents, placing jobs at risk, leaving children without supervision, and debasing fundamental human rights, for as long as it takes to strong-arm payment from Plaintiffs and others.
3. Plaintiffs are a group of similarly situated individuals who are victims of this predatory scheme. Each of these human beings was locked in a cell in the City of St. Ann solely because he or she was unable to afford a cash payment. And each was left to languish in filthy, often overcrowded jail cells because he or she could not afford to pay jacked-up fines, penalties, and other charges. Defendant did not inquire about, much less accommodate, the hardships its extortionate demands placed on Plaintiffs and their families. Nor did Defendant offer to provide Plaintiffs with counsel who could advise them of their rights or otherwise protect them from this predatory scheme.1
4. St. Ann’s officials and employees—through their conduct, decisions, training, rules, policies, practices, and procedures—constructed and implemented this scheme for the overriding purpose of raising municipal revenue (and not for any legitimate law enforcement purpose).
5. Defendant gained the coercive leverage to effectuate this scheme by resurrecting a modern analogue of debtors’ prisons—an institution this country rejected as inhumane more than
1 The architecture of this illegal scheme has been in place for many years. See, e.g., T.E. Lauer, Prolegomenon to Municipal Court Reform in Missouri, 31 Mo. L. Rev. 69, 88 (1966) (“[I]t seems that many citizens of the state are being confined needlessly in our city jails . . . .”); id. at 85 (“[I]t is disgraceful that we do not appoint counsel in our municipal courts to represent indigent persons accused of ordinance violations.”); id. at 90 (“It is clear that many municipalities have at times conceived of their municipal courts in terms of their revenue-raising ability. . . .”).
2 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 3 of 70 PageID #: 672
a century ago. That leverage has made the scheme increasingly profitable. St. Ann’s law enforcement and municipal court practices focus on maximizing revenue, rather than promoting public safety, administering justice, or providing the bare rudiments of due process. Defendant has forced the poorest and most vulnerable citizens to finance a municipal system that is a tool of injustice and oppression.
6. As a result, this scheme has targeted and persecuted people who live in or travel through St. Ann and its neighboring municipalities’ borders, trapping people for years in a cycle of escalating fees, intractable debt, and imprisonment. In particular, Defendant has preyed on the most vulnerable, those living in or near poverty, who are least able to bear, or to avoid, the extortionate costs this system has imposed.
7. Thousands of people in the Plaintiffs’ position must divert funds from their disability checks, or sacrifice meager earnings their families desperately need for food, diapers, clothing, rent, and utilities, to pay spiraling court fines, fees, costs, and surcharges. Whether or not valid, a citation for a minor offense—a broken tail light, a lane change without signaling— often generates crippling debts for people like Plaintiffs, resulting in jail time when they cannot afford to pay, deepening their already desperate poverty.
8. The summary imprisonment imposed on people who have appeared in the municipal courts of St. Ann and its neighboring municipalities but who could not afford to pay the sums of money demanded has frightened many away from the courthouse, allowing Defendant to jack up the fines even further and issue arrest warrantsintended to coerce paymentfor “Failure to Pay” and “Failure to Appear.” Month after month, year after year, the cycle has repeated itself, ensnaring Plaintiffs and those like them in a system from which it has been nearly impossible to extricate themselves.
3 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 4 of 70 PageID #: 673
9. Defendant has abused the legal system to bestow a patina of legitimacy on what is, in reality, extortion. If private parties had created and implemented this scheme, enforced it by threatening and imposing indefinite incarceration, and milked poor families of millions of dollars, the law would punish them as extortionists and racketeers, and the community would take steps to prevent them from exploiting the most vulnerable of its members. These predatory practices are no more legitimate—and indeed are more outrageous—when state and local government actors perpetrate them under color of law.
10. The treatment of the named Plaintiffs reveals a coordinated, systemic effort to deprive some of the area’s poorest residents of their rights under the United States Constitution. For years, Defendant has engaged in the same conduct, as a matter of policy and practice, against Plaintiffs and thousands of other impoverished citizens. These citizens’ fundamental constitutional right to liberty, however, does not depend on their income. Defendant has created or revived a de facto debtors’ prison, using it as a tool to cow poor people into financing municipal government. Such flagrant abuse is not consistent with the values this country holds dear, with the rule of law, or with the constitutional guarantee of due process.
11. Importantly, to enable and perpetuate this unconstitutional scheme, the City of St. Ann acts as a veritable warehouse in which other neighboring municipalities can deposit excess arrestees.2 On their own, each of these other neighboring municipalities lacks the capacity to hold more than a few people at a given time, so they contract with St. Ann to arrest a significantly greater number of people for alleged municipal ordinance violations and ship them
2 Plaintiffs originally named twelve of these municipalities—Edmundson, Normandy, Cool Valley, Velda City, Beverly Hills, Pagedale, Calverton Park, St. John, Bel-Ridge, Wellston, Velda Village Hills, and Bellefontaine Neighbors—as defendants along with the City of St. Ann. Pursuant to this Court’s April 24, 2017 Order, Plaintiffs are filing this Second Amended Complaint against the City of St. Ann only.
4 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 5 of 70 PageID #: 674
to St. Ann Jail, where arrestees languish until the municipalities can extract enough money from the individuals or their families to satisfy their demands. Without the availability of St. Ann’s recently-expanded jail, which “sleeps 42, not including a pen for short-timers and a juvenile area,”3 these other municipalities would not be able to incarcerate, or threaten to incarcerate, human beings too poor to pay their debts.
12. Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, and on behalf of those similarly situated, bring this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs seek in this civil action the vindication of their fundamental rights, compensation for the abuse that Defendant has rained down on them, injunctive relief assuring that Defendant will not violate their rights again, and a declaration that the Defendant’s conduct is unlawful.4
NATURE OF THE ACTION 13. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendant has jailed people who cannot afford to pay money they supposedly owe Defendant or neighboring municipalities for traffic tickets and other minor alleged municipal code violations. Defendant has jailed people for nonpayment without inquiring whether they can pay, without considering alternatives to imprisonment as required by federal and Missouri law, and without setting bail and/or bond based on the person’s individual circumstances.
3 Bogan, Jesse, A Sense of Change in St. Ann, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH (Aug. 5, 2012), http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/a-sense-of-change-in-st-ann/article_c2dd4c0b-45fc552f-8df9-8ec5db29d7cb.html. 4 The Plaintiffs make the allegations in this Complaint based on personal knowledge as to matters in which they have had personal involvement, and on information and belief as to all other matters.
5 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 6 of 70 PageID #: 675
14. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendant has jailed indigent people for these alleged debts without informing them of their right to counsel and without providing counsel for those who cannot afford it.
15. Pursuant to common practice, Defendant has arbitrarily and incrementally set and re-set the amount of money it requires indigent people to pay for release throughout their indefinite detention, sometimes eventually releasing the person if Defendant determines it cannot extort money from him or her.
16. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendant has incarcerated individuals indefinitely, unless and until the person, or the person’s family or friends, can pay sufficient money to satisfy Defendant. The conditions of incarceration are so miserable as to intensify the coercive effect.
17. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendant has issued and enforced invalid arrest warrants, threatened alleged debtors with jail if they do not bring cash to court, held alleged debtors in jail for a week or more without any judicial appearance, and, without due process, set and modified monetary payments necessary for release with no regard for ability to pay or basic fairness. These tactics frighten people away from appearing in court and then punish them for not appearing.
18. These policies and practices are further reflected in, and caused by, Defendant’s (1) failure to establish consistent procedures, effective training, and meaningful supervision to appropriately guide and monitor the actions of law enforcement officers and other agents of Defendant engaged in law enforcement and municipal court activities; (2) failure to establish reliable systems to detect and appropriately discipline and hold accountable municipal officials
6 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 7 of 70 PageID #: 676
for misconduct; and (3) prioritizing revenue generation at the expense of legitimate public safety needs and the rights of thousands of St. Louis County residents.
19. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
20. This is a civil rights action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq., and the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
21. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. PARTIES
22. Plaintiff Quinton M. Thomas is a 28-year-old man. 23. Plaintiff Roelif Earl Carter is a 63-year-old man. 24. Plaintiff Bradley Jiles is a 24-year-old man. 25. Plaintiff Angela Davis is a 44-year-old woman. 26. Plaintiff Meredith Walker is a 47-year-old woman. 27. Plaintiff Brittany Ellis is a 26-year-old woman. 28. Plaintiff Donya Pierce is a 26-year-old woman. 29. Plaintiff Mawoussime Adoboe is a 33-year-old woman. 30. Plaintiff Veronica Murphy is a 31-year-old woman. 31. Plaintiff Charles Riley is a 58-year-old-man. 32. Defendant City of St. Ann is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City of St. Ann operates the St. Ann Jail, the St. Ann Police Department, and the St. Ann Municipal Court.
7 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 8 of 70 PageID #: 677
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. Factual Background
33. St. Louis County, Missouri is comprised of 90 municipalities and 81 separate municipal courts. These municipalities range in population from under 100 people to over 10,000. The population of the City of St. Ann is estimated to be 12,812.
34. In 2013, the municipal courts of St. Louis City and County collected $61,152,087 in fines and fees. During that same time, the combined total of court fines and fees collected by Missouri municipal courts was $132,032,351.63. This means that the municipal courts in the St. Louis region accounted for 46% of all fines and fees collected statewide, despite being home to only 22% of Missourians.5
35. In recent years, there has been little to no oversight of the St. Louis region’s municipal courts. A judicial circuit in Missouri contains on average 8.6 municipal court divisions. The St. Louis County judicial circuit contains 81 municipal court divisions. As a result, the presiding judge of St. Louis County’s circuit courts must oversee nearly ten times the number of municipal courts and municipal court judges as an average presiding judge in Missouri.6
36. According to the most recent available information (FY 2015), court fines and fees were the largest single source of revenue for St. Ann.7 In 2013, St. Ann received 37.47% of its general revenue from fines and fees.8 In 2014, this number was 28.85%.9
5 See Better Together’s Municipal Courts Study, available at http://www.bettertogetherstl.com/studies/public-safety/municipal-courts-report. 6 Id. 7 ANNUAL BUDGET, STANNMO.ORG http://www.stannmo.org/DocumentCenter/View/2596. 8 Sources: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=68844; http://www.bettertogetherstl.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/10/BT-Municipal-Courts-Report-Appendix.pdf.
8 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 9 of 70 PageID #: 678
37. Based on data reported by police departments to the Missouri Attorney General,
black residents in St. Ann are much more likely to be searched and/or arrested as a result of a
vehicle stop.10 For example, in 2015, in St. Ann, out of 8,140 total vehicle stops, 5.87% of stops
of white individuals resulted in a search, whereas 15.34% of stops of black individuals resulted
in a search. While contraband is equally likely to be discovered during stops involving both
white drivers and black drivers, black drivers are nearly three times more likely to be arrested
than white drivers as a result.11
B. Defendant Has Operated Its Municipal Court and Jail as a Profit Center
38. Defendant has improperly used its municipal court and jail as a profit center
rather than a dispenser of justice.12 Between 2012 and 2016, Defendant reaped $13.9 million in
revenue from its municipal court.13
39. Well before each fiscal year, Defendant determines the amount of money it needs
its municipal court to generate. Defendant depends on the money collected through its municipal
9 OFFICE OF STATE COURTS ADMIN., MO. JUDICIAL REPORT SUPP.: FISCAL YEAR 2014, Table 94, http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=83262; General Administration #2, BETTER TOGETHER ST. LOUIS 8-12 (December 2015), http://www.bettertogetherstl.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/12/Better-Together-General-Administration-Report-2-FINAL-.pdf. 10 MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL VEHICLE STOPS REPORT, available at https://ago.mo.gov/home/vehicle-stops-report/advanced-search. 11 John Eligon, Missouri Reports Wide Racial Disparity in Traffic Stops, NEW YORK TIMES (Jun. 1, 2015), https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/us/big-disparity-for-blacks-pulled-over-inmissouri.html. 12 Unless otherwise stated in this Complaint, the policies, practices, and procedures of Defendant described herein have been in existence for at least the past five years. 13 OFFICE OF STATE COURTS ADMIN., MO. JUDICIAL REPORT SUPP.: FISCAL YEAR 2012, Table 94, http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=58805; OFFICE OF STATE COURTS ADMIN., MO. JUDICIAL REPORT SUPP.: FISCAL YEAR 2013, Table 94, http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=68844; OFFICE OF STATE COURTS ADMIN., MO. JUDICIAL REPORT SUPP.: FISCAL YEAR 2014, Table 94, http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=83262; OFFICE OF STATE COURTS ADMIN., MO. JUDICIAL REPORT SUPP.: FISCAL YEAR 2015, Table 94, http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=96437; OFFICE OF STATE COURTS ADMIN., MO. JUDICIAL REPORT SUPP.: FISCAL YEAR 2016, Table 94, https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=109581.
9 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 10 of 70 PageID #: 679
court to help fund its jail, pay municipal court judicial salaries, pay city attorney’s office salaries, and fund other portions of its municipal budget.
40. Defendant has operated its court and jail to maximize revenues at the expense of justice. Defendant has made decisions regarding the operation of the court and the jail— including the assessment of fines, fees, costs, and surcharges; the availability and conditions of payment plans; the determination of amounts required for release from jail; the issuance and withdrawal of arrest warrants; and the refusal to appoint an attorney for indigent defendants— based on its desire to meet fiscal projections rather than on legitimate penological considerations.
41. In 2015 alone, Defendant issued one arrest warrant per every five adults residing in the City, affecting two out of every five households,14 mostly for minor municipal ordinance violations like traffic tickets.
42. In addition, St. Ann provides jailing services for several neighboring municipalities. Pursuant to contractual arrangements, St. Ann charges each of these municipalities a fee for each day St. Ann incarcerates an individual on the municipality’s behalf. On information and belief, this fee is $35 per day.
43. At least 14 of Defendant’s neighboring municipalities depend on the St. Ann Jail as a jailing hub, thereby expanding significantly those municipalities’ capacities to boost municipal revenues by arresting, jailing, and coercing payments from more and more poor residents of the St. Louis region for minor traffic tickets.
14 OFFICE OF STATE COURTS ADMIN., MO. JUDICIAL REPORT SUPP.: FISCAL YEAR 2015, Table 95, http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=96438; U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, PROFILING OF GENERAL POPULATION AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS 2010, http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
10 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 11 of 70 PageID #: 680
C. Defendant’s Unlawful Policies and Practices 44. In a typical case, an individual is stopped (often illegitimately) in St. Ann or one
of its neighboring municipalities for a traffic offense or other minor violation. In many cases, these violations are “crimes of poverty,” meaning that they result, at least in part, from the individual’s inability to pay for things like insurance, vehicle registration fees, etc.
45. The police officer issues the person a citation and informs her that she can either pay the fine or appear at the municipal court for the relevant jurisdiction at a designated date and time. In some cases, the person can simply afford to pay the citation and thereby avoid the clutches of the municipal court system. But many in the St. Louis area are indigent and cannot afford to pay such citations without sacrificing basic necessities like food, diapers, and rent. For these individuals, the system works differently—it becomes a Kafkaesque web of indignities and incarceration that plunge the victim ever deeper into poverty.
46. An indigent person who cannot afford to pay a fine from an alleged traffic offense or other minor violation must appear in a municipal court. There, she is forced to wait in line— in some cases, for hours—before being called before a municipal judge who will ask whether she has the money to pay, on the spot, the fine plus court costs. The municipal judge does not inquire as to whether the person is indigent or can afford to pay the fine, nor does he offer to provide a lawyer if the person cannot afford one. Instead, the municipal judge asks a simple question: do you have the money to pay today, yes or no? In many cases, the answer is no.
47. In the many cases in which the individual cannot come up with the requisite funds at the courthouse, municipal judges or others within the St. Ann jailing orbit regularly employ several tactics to coerce payment: (i) in some cases, the municipal judge or other municipal official instructs the person that she must return to court at a future date and time with the
11 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 12 of 70 PageID #: 681
required funds, plus interest, or she will be jailed; (ii) in other cases, the municipal judge or other municipal official instructs the person to see the court clerk to set up a payment plan, which will require the person to pay in installments, subject to exorbitant interest rates, surcharges, and other fees; and (iii) in other cases, the municipal judge or other municipal official detains the person at the courthouse for the remainder of the court session (if not longer), instructing her to contact friends and family to bring money to the courthouse to secure the person’s release.
48. In all three scenarios, the individual faces the possibility of jail time if she is not able to pay the fine and associated court costs, interest, surcharges, and other fees. Municipal court officials, including the municipal judges and clerks, regularly instruct court attendees that failure to pay a fine and other costs will result in jail time. Indeed, residents of St. Ann and its neighboring municipalities commonly understand that attending a municipal court session without the funds necessary to pay off a citation or other debt can result in jail time, irrespective of whether the individual actually has the ability to pay. Defendant’s tactics thus frighten many people, including many of the Plaintiffs, away from municipal court dates when those individuals do not have enough money to pay their fines and other debts. This ultimately enables St. Ann and paying customers of the St. Ann Jail to squeeze more money from these poor residents.
49. If an individual misses or is alleged to have missed a court date, the court’s computer system automatically generates an arrest warrant for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear.” According to recent reports from the state auditor’s office, no judge or prosecutor reviews or signs these arrest warrants.15
15 See Summary of Audit Findings Judiciary---Municipal Divisions, Report No. 2016-046, available at http://app.auditor.mo.gov/AuditReports/AudRpt2.aspx?id=60, which states:
12 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 13 of 70 PageID #: 682
50. Often, the computer system auto-generates an arrest warrant even where (a) the individual did, in fact, attend the court session, but the municipal clerk or other court official erred in recording the person’s absence, (b) the individual did not receive adequate notice of the court date, or (c) the individual had a valid excuse for her absence -- e.g., because she was detained by another municipality, had a court date in another municipality, or was ill.
51. Defendant has issued hundreds, if not thousands, of arrest warrants for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” each year. These arrest warrants are often pretextual and are simply a mechanism by which Defendant can coerce indigent persons to pay fines and costs that they cannot actually afford.
52. The arrest warrant empowers any municipality to stop and arrest the individual the warrant identifies. Having arrested this person, an officer may take the individual to: (i) the municipal jail of the municipality in which the person was arrested, (ii) the municipal jail of the municipality that issued the arrest warrant, or, in many cases, (iii) the St. Ann Jail, which contracts with neighboring municipalities to provide jailing services.
53. Once the individual arrives at the St. Ann Jail, she can secure her release immediately if she is able to pay off her entire debt (including any interest, fees, or other costs).
The Municipal Judge did not sign warrants issued and did not issue written authorization for the Court Clerk/Administrator to sign warrants on his behalf. In addition, the Municipal Judge allowed the Court Clerk/Administrator to use his signature stamp on warrants and failure to appear notices. Without the signature or written authorization, there is no documentation the warrants were authorized. In addition, the municipal division did not always issue warrants timely. Supreme Court Rule 37.45 states a warrant shall be signed by the judge or by the clerk of the court when directed by the judge for a specific warrant. To ensure warrants are properly issued in accordance with Supreme Court rules, the Municipal Judge should sign warrants or provide specific written authorization for the Court Clerk/Administrator to sign warrants and discontinue allowing the use of his facsimile signature. In addition, warrants should be issued timely to ensure outstanding court appearances and fines are addressed.
13 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 14 of 70 PageID #: 683
In some cases, the St. Ann Jail will release the individual if she is able to pay a portion of her debt, taking whatever money the individual has on-hand or can obtain from family and friends.
54. In almost all cases, an individual arrested for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” does not appear before a judge to answer for the alleged crime of failing to attend a court date. Instead, after her release from the St. Ann Jail, the individual receives a new court date at which a municipal judge will ask the same question: do you have money today to pay your fines, yes or no? Not just the original fine for the traffic stop, but now multiplied many times over because of the individual’s inability to pay and sometimes because the municipality’s abusive tactics have scared away Plaintiffs and others from even coming to court. In this manner, the cycle repeats itself, month after month, year after year.
55. The practices described in this “typical” example are ubiquitous in St. Ann. As a matter of policy and practice, municipal officials in St. Ann (including judges, police officers, and court clerks, among others) have routinely:
a. Issued citations for supposed traffic and municipal code violations (which, on information and belief, are the product of discriminatory enforcement of the law);
b. Demanded payment of fines for such traffic and municipal violations, without any inquiry into whether the person has the ability to pay, and without offering to provide a lawyer if the person is indigent and cannot afford one;
c. Established draconian payment plans with usurious interest rates and other fees for indigent persons who cannot afford to pay their fines, and without offering nonmonetary alternatives to satisfy the obligation;
d. Threatened people, including the indigent, with incarceration under inhumane conditions if they cannot afford to pay their fines, court costs, and other fees;
e. Issued auto-generated arrest warrants for “Failure to Appear,” even if the person did in fact appear, was unable to appear for good
14 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 15 of 70 PageID #: 684
reason (including lack of notice), or was intimidated by municipal officials into not appearing because of the well-founded fear that they would be summarily thrown into jail if they appeared without being able to pay;
f. Denied appointment of counsel for indigent defendants who face incarceration for failing to satisfy a payment plan condition imposed by Defendant;
g. Incarcerated people for their inability to pay fines, court costs, and other fees, or on the basis of unlawful, auto-generated arrest warrants for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” at a court date;
h. Released people from jail immediately if they are able to pay their outstanding debts to Defendant or, in some cases, a portion of their outstanding debtseven if the purported basis for the arrest was the criminal act of failing to appear at a court date; and
i. Detained people in local jails for up to three days, if not longer, if they could not afford to pay their outstanding debts, or at least some portion of such debts.
i. Debt-Collection Proceedings in Defendant’s Municipal Court
56. Defendant’s municipal court is staffed primarily by its municipal court judge, the
city prosecutor, court clerk, and other court staff.
57. In April 2016, St. Ann moved to a consolidated municipal court system, whereby
the presiding Judge of St. Louis County approved the administrative handling of several
municipalities’ court cases through the St. Ann municipal courts. The municipalities included in
the “Consolidated Municipal Courts” are (as of this filing): the City of Vinita Park, the City of
Northwoods, the City of Charlack, the City of Wellston, and the City of Beverly Hill.
58. There is extraordinary overlap among the court officials in the St. Louis County
municipalities, including St. Ann. For example, attorneys at a single law firm (with fewer than
20 attorneys) serve as judge, prosecutor, or city attorney in more than 27% of St. Louis County
municipalities (at least 25 out of 90), including St. Ann. In some instances, the city attorney for
15 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 16 of 70 PageID #: 685
one municipality serves as the municipal judge in another. In St. Ann, attorneys from the same firm serve as both municipal prosecutor and city attorney.
59. The purported function of the St. Ann municipal court is to adjudicate traffic violations and other minor offenses; the real purpose, however, is to collect payments, in an assembly-line fashion, for outstanding tickets from alleged traffic and other minor municipal code violations.
60. If a person is too poor to pay her debts, her case can go on indefinitely, subjecting her to multiple arrests and ever-mounting fees.
61. A person can end this debt collection process only by paying what Defendant claims that she owes, including any surcharges or fees, which can balloon to sums that dwarf the original fine for the minor traffic offense that launched the vicious cycle.
62. In many cases, Defendant has not advised people appearing at these municipal court sessions about their relevant rights under federal or Missouri law, including applicable constitutional rights and state-law defenses and procedures, nor has Defendant provided people any realistic avenue of escape from the pernicious web in which they are entangled.
63. In many cases, Defendant, pursuant to policy and practice, has not provided an attorney to people appearing at these municipal court sessions.
64. In many cases, Defendant, pursuant to policy and practice, has imprisoned those who are unable to satisfy whatever fines and penalties (either in full or as part of a repayment schedule) Defendant has set at these municipal court sessions. Defendant has done so without providing due process, without conducting any meaningful or individualized inquiry into a person’s ability to pay, and without considering the availability or suitability of alternatives to imprisonment.
16 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 17 of 70 PageID #: 686
65. Because of Defendant’s policy and practice of not appointing counsel, the vast majority of those jailed for failing to satisfy the payment plan conditions that Defendant has imposed, or in connection with an arrest warrant for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear,” have no access to an attorney.
ii. Defendant’s Flawed and Unlawful Warrant Process 66. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendant has applied arbitrary and illegal policies for the issuance and enforcement of arrest warrants for those unable to satisfy Defendant’s extortionate demands. 67. Defendant has issued arrest warrants for failure to make a payment by a certain date (“Failure to Pay”) without probable cause to believe that the person has the ability to make a payment. Defendant has preyed on the unrepresented, refusing to withdraw arrest warrants even for those who are plainly too poor to make payments. 68. Defendant has also routinely issued arrest warrants for “Failure to Appear” at court dates without giving people adequate notice of the supposed obligation to appear, such as when Defendant has failed to serve a valid summons or when Defendant has rescheduled a hearing without providing reasonable notice. 69. The arrest warrants that Defendant has issued for “Failure to Pay” and “Failure to Appear” at court dates have been auto-generated by a computer program, based on information that the municipal court clerks entered manually into the computer. No judge or magistrate approved these warrants before they were issued. 70. After arresting a person based on a warrant, Defendant has routinely demanded that she make immediate payment and, if she has not done so, Defendant has held the person in
17 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 18 of 70 PageID #: 687
jail and unnecessarily delayed presentment in court for days or weeks in an effort to coerce the victim to pay for her freedom, regardless of her indigence.
iii. The Arbitrary and Indefinite Detention of the Indigent 71. After booking a person in jail for either “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear,” Defendant has offered immediate release in exchange for a cash payment. The amount of cash that Defendant has required for release has often been the total debt the person owes from judgments in old traffic and other misdemeanor cases. 72. Defendant also jails people for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” warrants that neighboring municipalities issue. 73. Particularly given Defendant’s frequent interactions with these neighboring municipalities and the substantial overlap among these municipalities in personnel involved in the courts, jails, and law enforcement, Defendant knows, or should know, that these warrants arise from the person’s inability to pay a debt owed to the neighboring municipality. 74. On those occasions that Defendant has jailed people for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” warrants issued by neighboring municipalities, Defendant has offered immediate release in exchange for a cash payment, and the amount of cash that Defendant and the neighboring municipality have required for release has often been the total debt the person owes from judgments in old traffic and other misdemeanor cases. 75. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendant has held people in jail, in abject conditions, for an indeterminate period of several days or more unless and until they or their families have paid Defendant or the neighboring municipalities the amounts demanded. 76. For those individuals imprisoned for failing to satisfy a previously-established payment schedule, Defendant has confiscated any previous amounts paid by the person and reset
18 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 19 of 70 PageID #: 688
the person’s debts. Defendant has taken these actions without providing any meaningful process or access to counsel.
77. Through these practices, Defendant has strong-armed many impoverished people in St. Ann and elsewhere in the metropolitan area to pay Defendant and the municipalities relying on the St. Ann Jail thousands of dollars over a period of many years based on a few relatively inexpensive initial tickets.
78. If they were able, a person could end this cycle by paying the balance of her debt. It is and has been the policy and practice of Defendant to allow any inmate at any time to pay the full amount of the debt owed and to be released immediately, terminating all existing “cases” for which debt is being collected.
iv. Sequential Detentions on Behalf of Multiple Municipalities 79. In many cases, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated receive citations for traffic and other minor violations in multiple different municipalities (in some cases, for the exact same violation, such as a broken taillight). 80. Many of the Plaintiffs, and others like them, have outstanding debts in several different municipalities that they simply cannot afford to pay. As these rapidly compounding fines, fees, costs, and surcharges from multiple municipalities pile up, the likelihood that an indigent person will be able to pay off even one municipality diminishes greatly, creating a never-ending spiral of debt, interest charges, missed payments, and incarceration. 81. Pursuant to policy and practice, Defendant has held inmates in its jail on behalf of multiple municipalities. In some instances, Defendant has imprisoned people for days or weeks at a time on behalf of multiple municipalities in a sequential fashion (i.e., Defendant holds the inmate in its jail for multiple other municipalities, one after another).
19 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 20 of 70 PageID #: 689
82. In other words, as soon as an inmate has paid off his debt for one municipality to secure his “release,” Defendant has returned him to his jail cell for the alleged failure to pay debts owed to another municipality.
83. In this manner, Defendant may have held an indigent person in jail for an extended period of timeweeks or, in some cases, even monthssimply because he was too poor to pay off his debts, with his imprisonment only exacerbating his poverty, making him even less able to break out of this vicious cycle of harassment and extortion.
v. Defendant Creates a Culture of Fear 84. Defendant’s policies and practices, as well as those of neighboring municipalities, have engendered fear among the poorest residents of the St. Louis metropolitan area. 85. Many of these residents do not, or are reluctant to, leave their homes, or to travel between municipalities, for fear of being stopped, arrested, and incarcerated based on outstanding debts on traffic tickets that they cannot afford to pay. 86. They are afraid to appear at the payment window or in the courts of Defendant and nearby municipalities to explain their indigence because they justifiably fear that Defendant will jail them without any meaningful process. This allows Defendant and other municipalities to jack up the fees even higher. 87. Defendant plays an especially critical role in this scheme due to its centralized jailing function. 88. The fear that Defendant has fostered has further degraded the quality of life of the poorest residents in St. Ann and elsewhere in the metropolitan area. Many have cut back on food, clothing, utilities, sanitary home repairs, and other basic necessities of life to satisfy, or try to satisfy, Defendant’s rapacious demands for money.
20 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 21 of 70 PageID #: 690
vi. The Deplorable Conditions of the St. Ann Jail 89. As a matter of policy and practice, St. Ann detains inmates jailed for non-payment of debts in overcrowded cells where St. Ann ignored basic principles of hygiene, sanitation, medical and mental health care, and inmate safety. 90. Officers of the St. Ann Jail have routinely:
a. Denied inmates toothbrushes, toothpaste, and soap; b. Detained inmates in dirty cells that reek of human waste and bodily odors and fluids; c. Forced inmates to wear the same clothes for days and weeks without access to laundry or clean undergarments; d. Forced inmates to endure days, or even weeks, without providing access to a shower; e. Detained inmates in cold temperatures, even where the inmates have been huddled together with a single thin blanket and have begged guards for warm blankets; f. Detained inmates in conditions that cause them to develop illnesses and infections in open wounds that spread to other inmates; g. Detained inmates in conditions in which they are required to sleep next to an open unclean toilet, atop which sits a water faucet from which they must use their unclean cupped hands as vessels to drink water in an unsanitary manner, leading inmates to suffer dehydration; h. Refused to provide women adequate hygiene products for menstruation; i. Forced inmates to sleep amidst refuse because of the lack of adequate trash removal;
21 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 22 of 70 PageID #: 691
j. Denied inmates vital medical care and prescription medication, even when their families begged for permission to bring medications to the jail;
k. Failed to provide inmates who have serious mental health issues with necessary mental health treatment or prescription medication;
l. Provided inmates food so insufficient and uniform that they lose significant amounts of weight and lack essential nutrients;
m. Deprived inmates of books, legal materials, exercise, television, internet, and natural light; and
n. Sexually abused and physically beaten inmates, which results from a culture of unaccountability and abuse due to inadequate training and supervision.
91. These abuses and deprivations are accompanied by other pervasive humiliations. Jail guards routinely taunt impoverished people who are unable to pay for their release, and humiliate the inmates with degrading epithets, many focus on how bad the inmates look and smell after languishing in the St. Ann Jail.
92. The totality of these conditions described by the Plaintiffs and by numerous witnesses amounts to unlawful punishment. St. Ann has designed and maintained a jail that is degrading and humiliating in order to punish debtors for not paying their debts and to discourage them from missing payments to Defendant and its neighboring municipalities. The purpose and effect is to coerce debtors to borrow money or use money otherwise needed for the basic necessities of life in order to avoid incarceration in the St. Ann Jail.
93. The jail conditions created and perpetuated by Defendant would be unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment even for convicted prisoners. Defendant forces
22 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 23 of 70 PageID #: 692
these conditions on pretrial detainees and post-judgment debtors jailed solely because of their inability to make monetary payments and not pursuant to any criminal sentence.
94. The use of the St. Ann Jail and its deplorable conditions for discrete and indefinite periods of confinement has the purpose and effect of punishing and coercing indigent people rather than achieving any lawful goal.
vii. The Cycle of Debt and Jailing 95. Like the other impoverished people stuck in this brutal and pernicious system, Plaintiffs have been overwhelmed by the combination of rapidly compounding fines, fees, costs, and surcharges from multiple municipalities, as well as the cycle of repeated jailings that leads to lost jobs, poor health, and inadequate care for dependents. After scraping together cash from family and friends and borrowing money to pay off one municipality, Plaintiffs and other Class members often find themselves under arrest by or on behalf of another municipality. 96. For years, Plaintiffs have tried unsuccessfully to navigate this system without financial resources and without the assistance of a lawyer who understands the process—never knowing if arrest awaits when they leave the house, fearing, if they are arrested, indefinite incarceration because of their poverty. The futility of these efforts fundamentally alters Plaintiffs’ lives and often breeds a level of hopelessness that corrodes any bond with the community. 97. The fear of losing basic rights with no recourse is a daily fact of life for Plaintiffs and thousands of others in the metropolitan area. D. The Named Plaintiffs’ Imprisonment 98. Defendant’s policies and practices in collecting unpaid fines, fees, costs, and surcharges relating to traffic tickets and other minor offenses, for at least the past five years, caused and exemplifies the violations of the named Plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights.
23 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 24 of 70 PageID #: 693
i. Quinton M. Thomas 99. Quinton Thomas is a 28-year-old man who resides in St. Louis, Missouri. He is African-American. 100. Mr. Thomas has been jailed in the St. Ann Jail at least three times on warrants issued by Normandy and Edmundson, among other municipalities. The warrants initially stemmed from minor, driving-related offenses, such as running a stop sign, no proof of insurance, and improper vehicle registration. 101. In 2012, officers of the Normandy Police Department stopped Mr. Thomas for invalid license plates and failure to register his vehicle. The officers issued Mr. Thomas citations for these violations totaling $600. 102. Mr. Thomas could not afford to pay the $600 fine. Mr. Thomas appeared at the Normandy Municipal Court and explained to the municipal court judge that he could not afford to pay the $600 fine. 103. The municipal court judge responded that if Mr. Thomas did not pay at least $100, Normandy would issue a warrant for his arrest. Mr. Thomas responded that he could not afford to pay $100. He asked whether he could pay $50 instead, and the judge stated that he could not. Neither the municipal court judge nor any other court official made any inquiry into Mr. Thomas’ ability to pay, nor did they appoint an attorney for him. 104. Neither the municipal court judge nor any other court official offered Mr. Thomas alternatives to the fine, such as community service, even though Mr. Thomas unequivocally informed them that he could not afford to pay even $100 of the fine. 105. The municipal court judge, apparently indifferent to Mr. Thomas’ pleas of indigence, later issued a warrant for his arrest based on Mr. Thomas’ failure to pay $100.
24 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 25 of 70 PageID #: 694
106. In 2013, Mr. Thomas was driving to work and was stopped by officers of the Edmundson Police Department for allegedly failing to make a complete stop at a stop sign. Mr. Thomas denies running the stop sign. The officers informed Mr. Thomas that he had outstanding warrants in Normandy, Pine Lawn and St. John, among others. The Edmundson police officers took Mr. Thomas to the St. Ann Jail.
107. Officers at the St. Ann Jail informed Mr. Thomas that he could be released if he paid a $150 bond. There was no bail hearing. Mr. Thomas could not afford to make this payment and thus was unable to secure his release. The St. Ann Jail held Mr. Thomas for three days on behalf of Normandy and Edmundson. Officers at the St. Ann Jail were aware, or should have been aware, that the basis for Mr. Thomas’ incarceration was his inability to pay fines from minor, traffic-related offenses.
108. The conditions in the St. Ann Jail were terrible. The jail cells were packed four people to a cell. The cells were so filthy that Mr. Thomas did not want to make contact with the walls or even the mattresses, which appeared not to have been cleaned in years. Jail officers provided Mr. Thomas (and other inmates) with a used blanket, but nothing else to separate himself from the disgusting and unsanitary mattress.
109. The food in the St. Ann Jail was unhealthy and nearly inedible. Every meal consisted of a bologna sandwich (with greenish meat and hard bread), applesauce, and black coffee.
110. After three days, the St. Ann Jail “released” Mr. Thomas, and officers from the City of St. John transported Mr. Thomas to the St. John Police Department.
111. The St. John Police told Mr. Thomas that he had an outstanding warrant for an allegedly-unpaid parking ticket in St. John, information of which Mr. Thomas was previously
25 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 26 of 70 PageID #: 695
unaware. Officers further informed him that, because of additional late fees and fines that had accumulated over time, the amount owed had ballooned from approximately $100 to almost $500.
112. Police officers in St. John informed Mr. Thomas that they were going to take him to the St. Louis County Justice Center in Clayton unless he could make a payment of at least $120. There was no bail hearing. Mr. Thomas contacted his father, who was able to pay the $120 bond to secure Mr. Thomas’ release from St. John.
113. Shortly after his release, Mr. Thomas appeared at the Edmundson Municipal Court and explained to the municipal court judge that he could not afford to pay the $300 citation for running a stop sign.
114. The municipal court judge was indifferent to Mr. Thomas’ pleas of indigence and directed Mr. Thomas to see the municipal court clerk to set up a payment plan. The payment plan, however, only worsened Mr. Thomas’ situation—it included additional fees and costs and exorbitant interest rates, resulting in monthly payments that Mr. Thomas could not afford.
115. Neither the municipal court judge nor any other court official made any inquiry into Mr. Thomas’ ability to pay, nor did they appoint an attorney for Mr. Thomas.
116. Neither the municipal court judge nor any other court official offered Mr. Thomas alternatives to the fine, such as community service, even though Mr. Thomas unequivocally informed them that he could not afford to pay the fine.
117. A key reason Mr. Thomas could not afford to make the monthly payments required by the payment plan was that he had outstanding (and continually compounding) fines and court costs stemming from tickets for traffic and other minor violations in several other municipalities, including St. Charles, St. John, and Normandy.
26 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 27 of 70 PageID #: 696
118. Mr. Thomas missed a monthly payment because he could not afford to make the payment. Because Mr. Thomas could not afford to make the monthly payments, Edmundson issued a warrant for his arrest for “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear.”
119. As a result of the traffic ticketsonly one of which resulted from an alleged moving violationand warrants issued by Edmundson and Normandy, Mr. Thomas’ license was suspended in 2013, causing Mr. Thomas to lose his trucking job (which required a commercial driver’s license).
120. In January 2015, officers of the Dellwood Police Department responded to complaints of a domestic disturbance at Mr. Thomas’ home stemming from a verbal argument between Mr. Thomas and his girlfriend. The officers ran Mr. Thomas’ and his girlfriend’s names and discovered that both had outstanding warrants for unpaid traffic tickets. Notably, Dellwood did not issue any charges and did not make any arrests in connection with the domestic disturbance complaint.
121. The officers arrested Mr. Thomas and took him to the St. Louis County Justice Center in Clayton on outstanding warrants for unpaid traffic tickets. At the Justice Center, jail officers informed Mr. Thomas that they would release him if he paid a bond. There was no bail hearing. Mr. Thomas could not afford to make this payment and thus was unable to secure his release. Mr. Thomas was held in Clayton for approximately three days.
122. After approximately three days, officers at the Justice Center transferred Mr. Thomas to the St. Ann Jail, which held him on behalf of Normandy and Edmundson, among other municipalities, for the outstanding warrants described above. Officers at the St. Ann Jail were aware, or should have been aware, that the basis for Mr. Thomas’s incarceration was his inability to pay fines from minor, traffic-related offenses. Officers at the St. Ann Jail informed
27 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 28 of 70 PageID #: 697
Mr. Thomas that they would release him if he paid a bond. There was no bail hearing. Mr. Thomas was once again unable to pay a bond to secure his release from St. Ann.
123. As on previous occasions, the St. Ann Jail incarcerated Mr. Thomas in overcrowded and filthy cells, and provided disgusting and unhealthy food.
124. After at least one day in the St. Ann Jail, officers at the St. Ann Jail transferred Mr. Thomas to the O’Fallon Jail.
125. Officers at the O’Fallon Jail informed Mr. Thomas that his bond to secure his release was $340. There was no bail hearing. Mr. Thomas was able to scrounge together enough money from family and friends to pay a $340 bond to O’Fallon in order to secure his release.
126. In May 2016, officers of the Beverly Hills Police Department stopped Mr. Thomas for a broken bumper. The officers informed Mr. Thomas that he had outstanding warrants in Normandy and Edmundson, among others, and took Mr. Thomas to the Beverly Hills Police Department. The officers detained Mr. Thomas at the Beverly Hills Police Department for approximately one hour.
127. The officers told Mr. Thomas that he would need to pay $300 “to get out.” There was no bail hearing. Mr. Thomas was unable to pay that bond amount.
128. While Mr. Thomas was detained at the Beverly Hills Police Department, the officers refused to allow any of Mr. Thomas’ friends or family to retrieve the car. As a result, Mr. Thomas’ car was sent to impound. Mr. Thomas could not afford to get the car out of impound and consequently lost his car permanently.
129. Officers from the St. Ann Police Department picked Mr. Thomas up from the Beverly Hills Police Department and took him to the St. Ann Jail on behalf of Normandy and
28 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 29 of 70 PageID #: 698
Edmundson (in connection with warrants for unpaid traffic tickets and “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear” charges, as described above).
130. As on previous occasions, the St. Ann Jail incarcerated Mr. Thomas in overcrowded and filthy cells, and provided disgusting and unhealthy food. Also as on previous occasions, officers at the St. Ann Jail were aware, or should have been aware, that the basis for Mr. Thomas’ incarceration was his inability to pay fines from minor, traffic-related offenses.
131. Mr. Thomas was held in the St. Ann Jail for a day and a half. Mr. Thomas missed a day of work at his construction job because he was incarcerated. As a result of missing work due to his incarceration for failure to pay fines and costs from minor, traffic-related offenses, Mr. Thomas was fired from his construction job.
ii. Roelif Earl Carter 132. Roelif Earl Carter is a 63-year-old husband and the sole provider for his wife and daughter. He is African-American. 133. Mr. Carter is a Veteran of the United States Air Force and was honorably discharged from service in 1976. 134. After his service in the Air Force, Mr. Carter worked for the Ford Motor Company for thirteen years until he suffered a brain aneurysm that left him unable to work. He currently receives Supplemental Security Income due to his disability. 135. Mr. Carter has been jailed in the St. Ann Jail on at least four occasions in connection with warrants issued by Normandy and Cool Valley. The warrants issued by Normandy and Cool Valley initially stemmed from minor traffic infractions, including driving with a suspended license and failure to provide proof of insurance, from the early 2000s.
29 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 30 of 70 PageID #: 699
136. In October 2002, officers of the Cool Valley Police Department stopped Mr. Carter and issued him a citation for failure to provide proof of insurance.
137. Mr. Carter could not afford to pay Cool Valley’s fine. On multiple occasions, Mr. Carter appeared at the Cool Valley Municipal Court in connection with the fine for his traffic offense. Mr. Carter explained to the municipal court judge that he could not afford to pay the citation. The municipal court judge did not make any inquiry into Mr. Carter’s ability to pay, nor did the judge appoint an attorney for Mr. Carter. Instead, the judge directed Mr. Carter to see the municipal court clerk to set up a payment plan.
138. The municipal court clerk set up a payment plan for Mr. Carter, requiring him to pay $50 per month until his fine (including court costs, surcharges, and interest) was paid off in full.
139. When Mr. Carter was able to make his monthly payment (which he was able to do on some occasions), he was not required to appear at scheduled court sessions of the Cool Valley Municipal Court.
140. However, when Mr. Carter was not able to make his monthly payment, Cool Valley instructed that he was required to appear at scheduled court dates at the Cool Valley Municipal Court. At these municipal court sessions, the judge inquired only as to whether Mr. Carter had his monthly payment with him.
141. On each of the occasions Mr. Carter appeared at the Cool Valley Municipal Court, Mr. Carter did not have the requisite funds to make his monthly payment. Thus, on each occasion, the municipal court judge directed Mr. Carter to sit in the back of the courthouse until the end of the session (which could be up to two hours later), at which point the judge directed Mr. Carter to see the municipal court clerk. When Mr. Carter left the court, he owed additional
30 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 31 of 70 PageID #: 700
court costs, surcharges, and interest payments that bore no relationship to the actual cost, if any, the court incurred by virtue of the missed payment.
142. When Mr. Carter was not able to make his monthly payment, the Cool Valley Municipal Court automatically generated a warrant for his arrest (for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear”). On multiple occasions in the last five years, Cool Valley automatically generated arrest warrants for Mr. Carter for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear.”
143. Mr. Carter had outstanding arrest warrants from Cool Valley from 2002 until early 2016, when ArchCity Defenders secured a dismissal of charges against Mr. Carter. All of his warrants were for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” offenses in connection with trafficrelated infractions for which Mr. Carter could not afford to pay the fine.
144. In November 2012, officers of the Normandy Police Department stopped Mr. Carter and issued him a citation for allegedly running a red light, driving with a suspended license, and no proof of insurance.
145. Mr. Carter could not afford to pay the fine issued by Normandy. Mr. Carter knew that many municipalities, including Normandy, did not accept partial payment and engaged in a regular practice of arresting people who were unable to pay their fines. Because he could not afford to pay the fine, Mr. Carter did not appear at his scheduled court date and Normandy issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Carter for “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear.”
146. Following Normandy’s issuance of an arrest warrant for Mr. Carter’s alleged “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear,” Mr. Carter has appeared (or attempted to appear) in Normandy Municipal Court on at least two occasions. On neither occasion did the municipal court judge or any other municipal court official make any inquiry into Mr. Carter’s ability to pay, nor did the judge appoint an attorney for Mr. Carter.
31 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 32 of 70 PageID #: 701
147. On the first occasion, the municipal courthouse was overcrowded and Mr. Carter was unable to get in the door. Even though Mr. Carter tried to appear for his court date and was unable to do so only because the courthouse was overcrowded, Normandy issued a warrant for Mr. Carter’s arrest for “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear.”
148. On the second occasion, in or around January 2013, Mr. Carter appeared before a municipal court judge. The judge asked whether Mr. Carter had money with him to pay the outstanding fines and costs. Mr. Carter explained that he did not have money with him and could not afford to pay the fine, and asked whether community service was an option since Mr. Carter was indigent and could not afford to pay. The judge said no to Mr. Carter’s request for community service and directed Mr. Carter to see the municipal court clerk.
149. The municipal court clerk informed Mr. Carter that if he did not pay $100 by the next day, Normandy would issue a warrant for Mr. Carter’s arrest. Mr. Carter could not afford to make the $100 payment, and Normandy thereafter issued a warrant for his arrest.
150. As of March 2015, Mr. Carter had five outstanding arrest warrants from Normandy, all of which are for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” offenses in connection with traffic-related infractions for which Mr. Carter could not afford to pay the fine.
151. In December 2012, Mr. Carter was pulled over in Ferguson by officers of the Ferguson Police Department. The officers informed Mr. Carter that he had outstanding warrants in Cool Valley and Normandy (as described above) and took Mr. Carter to the St. Ann Jail.
152. Officers at the St. Ann Jail were aware, or should have been aware, that the basis for Mr. Carter’s incarceration was his inability to pay fines from minor, traffic-related offenses .Officers of the St. Ann Jail informed Mr. Carter that he could be released if he paid a $500
32 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 33 of 70 PageID #: 702
bond. There was no bail hearing. Mr. Carter could not afford to make this payment and thus was unable to secure his release.
153. The St. Ann Jail held Mr. Carter for three days on behalf of Cool Valley. After three days, Cool Valley “released” Mr. Carter. However, he remained in the St. Ann Jail, which now held him on behalf of Normandy (based on the outstanding warrants, as described above). The St. Ann Jail officers again informed Mr. Carter that he could be released if he paid a $500 bond. Again, there was no bail hearing. And again, Mr. Carter was unable to make this payment to secure his release.
154. Mr. Carter spent three days in the St. Ann Jail on behalf of Normandy and thenafter a total of six daysthe St. Ann Jail finally released him.
155. In or around December 2013, officers of the Ferguson Police Department stopped Mr. Carter and again incarcerated him in the St. Ann Jail on behalf of Cool Valley and Normandy for the same “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear” warrants discussed above. Again, officers at the St. Ann Jail were aware, or should have been aware, that the basis for Mr. Carter’s incarceration was his inability to pay fines from minor, traffic-related offenses.
156. The St. Ann Jail again held Mr. Carter for three days on behalf of Cool Valley and three days on behalf of Normandy (for a total of six days).
157. After six days, the St. Ann Jail “released” Mr. Carter on behalf of Normandy. However, officers of the St. Ann Jail informed Mr. Carter that they were continuing to hold him on behalf of St. Louis City. Mr. Carter told the jail officers that he did not have any outstanding warrants in St. Louis City. The officers, presumably after confirming that Mr. Carter did not have any outstanding warrants in St. Louis City, finally released him at 2:00 a.m. The officers never allowed Mr. Carter to make a free phone call, nor did they provide him any means of
33 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 34 of 70 PageID #: 703
transportation from the Jail. As a result, Mr. Carter had to walk 15 miles to his home on a cold night, finally reaching his home the next morning.
158. St. Ann subjected Mr. Carter to the same deplorable jail conditions experienced by the other Plaintiffs and all others detained in the St. Ann Jail. The conditions in the St. Ann Jail were filthy. Mr. Carter was given an orange jumpsuit to wear. The food provided to Mr. Carter was inadequate, sometimes only a honey bun and a packaged pot pie for the whole day.
iii. Bradley Jiles 159. Bradley Jiles is a 24-year-old African American man. 160. Mr. Jiles has been jailed more than ten times in the last five years in connection with alleged municipal ordinance violations. Over the span of approximately one year — from the summer of 2014 to the spring of 2015 — Mr. Jiles was jailed on four separate occasions in connection with unpaid fines for traffic and other minor violations. 161. Particularly, in June 2015, Mr. Jiles was driving to court after work to obtain a replacement title for his car after the original title had been damaged in the rain. He was driving within the speed limit and was pulled over. When Mr. Jiles inquired as to why, the officer told him that he was unregistered, had been speeding, and looked suspicious. The officer said to Mr. Jiles, “I could be an asshole and give you all these tickets because of your attitude.” The officer cited Mr. Jiles for failure to register, improper vehicle registration, and expired license. 162. Mr. Jiles was arrested and spent two days in St. Louis County Justice Center. The holding cell was covered with old gum and graffiti. Mr. Jiles pled guilty and was sentenced to two days of time served.
34 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 35 of 70 PageID #: 704
163. Officers at the Justice Center then transported Mr. Jiles to the Hazelwood Jail on a warrant for “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear” in connection with an unpaid traffic ticket for driving with an expired license.
164. After 24 to 48 hours, the Hazelwood Jail “released” Mr. Jiles and transported him to the St. Ann Jail on a warrant for “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear” in connection with an unpaid traffic ticket in Edmundson for driving with invalid license plates.
165. Officers at the St. Ann Jail were aware, or should have been aware, that the basis for Mr. Jiles’s incarceration was his inability to pay fines from minor, traffic-related offenses. Officers at the St. Ann Jail told Mr. Jiles that he could secure his release if he paid several hundred dollars in bond to Edmundson (based on outstanding fines for traffic and other minor violations). There was no bail hearing.
166. Mr. Jiles could not afford to pay the bond to secure his release. As a result, the St. Ann Jail held Mr. Jiles for at least three days. While he was in the St. Ann Jail, Mr. Jiles repeatedly asked how long he would be held, but was told nothing.
167. Finally, one of the St. Ann Jail officers noticed in Mr. Jiles’s file that Mr. Jiles should have been released. The St. Ann Jail released Mr. Jiles later that day.
168. St. Ann subjected Mr. Jiles to the same deplorable jail conditions experienced by the other Plaintiffs and all others detained in the St. Ann Jail.
169. Mr. Jiles lost income because of the amount of time he spent in jail, all for what amounted to routine, unjustified, or discriminatory traffic stops and minor municipal violations.
35 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 36 of 70 PageID #: 705
iv. Angela Davis 170. Angela Davis is a 44-year-old African-American mother of four. She resides in St. Louis, Missouri and has worked for Wells Fargo Advisors in Frontenac for the last eight years. 171. Ms. Davis has appeared before multiple municipal courts, including Normandy and Frontenac, but fears making an appearance if she cannot afford to pay. She has been told on at least one occasion, by a Normandy court clerk, that she would be locked up if she did not show up to court and pay. 172. Despite the threat of imprisonment, Ms. Davis was never offered legal counsel by any municipal court. Nor did any court ever inquire into her ability to pay the fine. Rather, in every instance in which Ms. Davis has appeared in municipal court, the municipal court judge has dictated the fine, recited a list of pre-determined optionsnone of which were suitable for Ms. Davis’ individual circumstancesand informed Ms. Davis to speak with the clerk. 173. Ms. Davis makes every effort to pay off any outstanding debts, but her financial resources remain limited. She recently paid off her debt in Normandy, which took almost a year at $100/month, a significant financial burden. She also has sought relief through the “amnesty” program in several municipalities.16 Despite her efforts, she still has two warrants in Florissant outstanding with a pending amnesty application.
16 St. Louis County offers an “amnesty” program in many of its municipal courts on a yearly basis. See, e.g., http://www.mslaca.org/index.php/amnesty-program/. Rather than acting as a true amnesty, this program simply allows participants to receive a voucher upon the payment of a $10 processing fee that must be presented at the municipal court’s next court date. At that court date, the participant must also present $100 in cash. If the participant pays $110, the warrant will not be executed. Even if the participant pays the $110 and has her warrant recalled, this “amnesty” program does not address the underlying fines and fees. The participant is placed back on a payment docket and is left without an attorney to negotiate his or her remaining fines. Additionally, it costs participants $110 per municipality where they have an active warrant. This
36 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 37 of 70 PageID #: 706
174. As a result, Ms. Davis has lived under a cloud of uncertainty that prevents her from living a normal life without fear of imprisonment due to her financial circumstances.
175. A Sunday evening in September 2013 illustrates the manner in which Ms. Davis has been punished for her financial circumstances. That evening, Ms. Davis was waiting to make a left turn at a Florissant intersection. She had two passengers in her car. One of these passengers, Mr. David Hines, is African-American. The other is white.
176. While she waited, a police car turned around and pulled up next to her. After the light turned green, Ms. Davis made a left turn. The police car flashed its lights and pulled her over. The officer said he pulled Ms. Davis over because her tags were expired.
177. The officer ran the names of Ms. Davis and her two passengers. The search returned multiple warrants for Ms. Davis in Normandy from 2013 (no proof of insurance, failure to register her vehicle, and corresponding violations of “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear”), University City from 2012 (failure to register her vehicle and speeding), and Florissant (failure to register her vehicle).
178. After the police completed their search for outstanding warrants, they arrested Ms. Davis and Mr. Hines. The white passenger, despite having an outstanding warrant in Washington state, was not arrested.
179. Over the next 22 hours, Ms. Davis was dragged to four separate jails. Her first stop was Florissant Jail. She arrived there around 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. that Sunday night, leaving around 1:00 a.m. on Monday morning.
180. When she arrived at the Florissant Jail, officers informed her that she could secure her release if she paid a bond of $800, which was far beyond her ability to pay. There was no
can add up quickly to $500-$700 just to have the warrants recalled while the underlying cases remain pending.
37 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 38 of 70 PageID #: 707
bail hearing. The officers did not inform Ms. Davis how that amount was calculated, nor did any official at the Florissant Jail ask if she would be able to afford payment. Instead, jail officers told Ms. Davis that she “gotta do some time” in Florissant for at least two-and-a-half hours “for her situation” before she could be passed off to the next municipality. In the meantime, Florissant forced Ms. Davis to don a prisoner’s jumpsuit.
181. Florissant failed to provide Ms. Davis a court date or any notice of next steps following her imprisonment. Instead, they handed her off to University City.
182. Upon arriving at University City, Ms. Davis learned that her sister had paid the $150 bond amount owed University City while Ms. Davis was imprisoned in Florissant. This payment should have been sufficient to secure Ms. Davis’ release, but it merely cleared her debt to University City.
183. University City held Ms. Davis in jail for approximately one hour. The jail was an older facility that was not well maintained, and had not been cleaned for quite some time.
184. University City next transported Ms. Davis to Frontenac. The Frontenac Jail held Ms. Davis for two hours. Ms. Davis did not know why the Frontenac Jail was holding her, nor did jail officers inform her of the reason for her incarceration.
185. After two hours, the Frontenac Jail “released” Ms. Davis and gave her a court date. When Ms. Davis later appeared at the Frontenac municipal court, she learned that the reason for her incarceration was an unpaid $21.40 court fee. Ms. Davis lost her freedom in Frontenac for approximately two hours for this de minimis fee. No effort was made to address this issue before she was jailed or to consider whether she had the ability to pay.
186. After her “release” from Frontenac, Ms. Davis was next transported to the St. Ann Jail. Officers at the St. Ann Jail were aware, or should have been aware, that the basis for Ms.
38 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 39 of 70 PageID #: 708
Davis’ incarceration was her inability to pay fines from minor, traffic-related offenses. The St. Ann Jail held Ms. Davis on outstanding warrants in Normandy for unpaid traffic tickets. Officers at the St. Ann Jail made no inquiry into Ms. Davis’ ability to pay her outstanding fines.
187. St. Ann subjected Ms. Davis to the same deplorable jail conditions experienced by the other Plaintiffs and all others detained in the St. Ann Jail. Ms. Davis spent around six hours locked in the St. Ann Jail, growing increasingly unnerved by sharing a cramped, noisy cell with a schizophrenic inmate who was announcing her intent to kill someone. The guards made no effort to separate this inmate from others or otherwise to assure the safety of Ms. Davis and the other inmates.
188. Officers at the St. Ann Jail did not tell Ms. Davis why she was in jail and refused to discuss a bond. The officers told Ms. Davis that she would have to call the Normandy Municipal Court to find out how much money she owed.
189. The officers, however, did not allow Ms. Davis to make any calls, thereby preventing her from calling the court to determine how much money she owed, from attempting to obtain money from family or friends to secure her release, and from exercising her right to seek legal counsel.
190. After being detained for around two hours, Ms. Davis’ sister paid Ms. Davis’ bond for her Normandy warrant. Officers at the St. Ann Jail refused to release Ms. Davis, however, claiming she had a pending warrant in Berkeley.
191. Ms. Davis’ sister drove to Berkeley twice to pay her sister’s bond. On both occasions, Berkeley officials said that they had notified St. Ann that they did not want to detain Ms. Davis. Notwithstanding this communication from Berkeley, the St. Ann Jail arbitrarily and petulantly continued to hold Ms. Davis for several more hours.
39 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 40 of 70 PageID #: 709
192. Finally, the St. Ann Jail released Ms. Davis. Officers at the St. Ann Jail did not tell Ms. Davis why she had been released; they merely gave Ms. Davis a sheet of paper with a court date, which they had stapled to her belongings.
193. At no time during her stay in four separate jails did any police officer, guard or other official seek to ascertain Ms. Davis’ ability to pay the debts that the municipalities claimed that she owed.
194. At no time during her stay in four separate jails was Ms. Davis brought before a judge or offered assistance of counsel.
195. The municipalities treated Ms. Davis with disrespect and made no effort to provide due process as they shuffled her from jail to jail.
v. Donya Pierce 196. Plaintiff Donya Pierce is a 26-year-old African-American mother of two children. 197. Ms. Pierce is currently employed at Mount Carmel Rehabilitation Center. 198. In March 2014, officers of the St. Ann Police Department pulled Ms. Pierce over for a routine traffic stop. Ms. Pierce was driving a male passenger at the time. 199. The officers searched the vehicle without Ms. Pierce’s consent and found that the male passenger was in possession of marijuana. 200. Although the officers did not find any marijuana in Ms. Pierce’s possession, they arrested her for marijuana possession and took her to the St. Ann Jail. Officers at the St. Ann Jail informed Ms. Pierce that she owed a cash bond of more than $1,000. There was no bail hearing. Ms. Pierce was unable to afford to pay this bond amount, and thus was unable to secure her release.
40 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 41 of 70 PageID #: 710
201. The officers also informed Ms. Pierce that she had warrants for traffic-related offenses in St. Ann, Jennings, Hazelwood, University City, Pagedale, and Breckenridge Hills.
202. The St. Ann Jail held Ms. Pierce for three weeks. Each week, officers of the St. Ann Jail took Ms. Pierce to appear before a St. Ann Municipal Court judge. Each time, Ms. Pierce explained that she was innocent of the marijuana charge and pleaded for her release. Each time, the municipal court judge denied these pleas and sent her back to the St. Ann Jail.
203. St. Ann subjected Ms. Pierce to the same deplorable jail conditions experienced by the other Plaintiffs and all others detained in the St. Ann Jail. The conditions were overcrowded and unsanitary. Although there were only eight beds per cell, roughly 20 women were assigned to each cell. Women who were ill and experiencing drug withdrawalsthe symptoms of which included vomiting, flatulence, nausea, and disorientation, among many other thingswere placed in the same cells, which exacerbated the unsanitary conditions.
204. Inmates at the St. Ann Jail were not allowed to shower until they had been at the jail for a week. Further, there were no trashcans in the cells, so inmates regularly piled their trash in the corner. In addition to being unsanitary, these conditions created a pungent, unpleasant odor in the jail.
205. The officers at the St. Ann Jail refused to allow Ms. Pierce to use the phone. As a result, she lost her job and her house. In addition, Ms. Pierce’s son missed approximately four weeks of school and was held back a grade because no one was able to take him to school besides his mother. Further, Ms. Pierce almost lost custody of her son when one of his teachers called the Child & Family Services Agency when he abruptly stopped coming to school. Because Ms. Pierce could not use the phone, she was unable to call the school to explain to them what was happening.
41 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 42 of 70 PageID #: 711
206. After three weeks, the St. Ann Jail finally released Ms. Pierce. St. Ann subsequently dropped the charges against Ms. Pierce for possession of marijuana.
vi. Brittany Ellis 207. Brittany Ellis is a 26-year-old African-American woman. 208. Ms. Ellis is currently employed as a cook in the Lake St. Charles Retirement Home. 209. In July 2015, at approximately 9:30 p.m., Ms. Ellis was driving home from her job at the Family Dollar in her mother’s truck. 210. Officers of the St. Ann Police Department stopped Ms. Ellis. The officers informed Ms. Ellis that they were pulling her over because her license plate information did not match the truck she was driving. She tried to explain that she was driving her mother’s truck, but to no avail. 211. The officers arrested Ms. Ellis and had the truck she was driving towed. Ms. Ellis and her mother did not have the $500 required to release the truck from the towing company. As a result, Ms. Ellis’ mother lost the truck permanently. 212. The officers took Ms. Ellis to the St. Ann Jail. The St. Ann Jail held Ms. Ellis for approximately eight days. During that time, no St. Ann official informed Ms. Ellis of her bond amount (if any), the reason for her detention, or for how long she would be held. 213. St. Ann subjected Ms. Ellis to the same deplorable jail conditions experienced by the other Plaintiffs and all others detained in the St. Ann Jail. Officers at the St. Ann Jail mistreated Ms. Ellis. Officers took Ms. Ellis’ glasses and refused to return them to her, even though she explained that she is legally blind.
42 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 43 of 70 PageID #: 712
214. Ms. Ellis was menstruating during the course of her incarceration at St. Ann. When she asked for sanitary napkins and/or tampons, a St. Ann correctional officer threw a sanitary napkin and tampons at her. Further, officers did not give her the privacy to go to the bathroom to handle her menstruation. As a result, Ms. Ellis was forced to change her pads in her cell in front of other inmates and correctional officers.
215. After eight days, the St. Ann Jail finally “released” Ms. Ellis and immediately transferred her to the St. Louis County Justice Center on a Hazelwood warrant for traffic-related offenses.
216. The St. Louis County Justice Center held Ms. Ellis for 12 days. During that time, officers at the Justice Center subjected Ms. Ellis to an extremely invasive search, forcing her to undress in front of a police officer who told her that she had “big breasts.” The officers also forced Ms. Ellis to spread her buttocks for the search, even though Ms. Ellis was in jail for a nonviolent, traffic-related offense.
217. After 12 days, the St. Louis County Justice Center “release” Ms. Ellis and immediately transferred her to the Ferguson Jail. The Ferguson Jail held Ms. Ellis for two days. During this time, officers at the Ferguson Jail did not inform her of the bond amount, ultimately releasing her and giving her a court date to appear in Ferguson Municipal Court.
218. In total, Ms. Ellis was incarcerated for 22 straight days for her inability to pay fines for traffic-related offenses. Because she was detained for so long, Ms. Ellis was terminated from her job at the Family Dollar (the store informed her that they were unable to hold her position for longer than a week).
43 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 44 of 70 PageID #: 713
219. Currently, Ms. Ellis has multiple traffic-related tickets assessed against her. In total, she owes $2,551 to six different municipalities in unpaid fines, court costs, surcharges, and interest.
220. Ms. Ellis is on payment plans for each of these municipalities. However, each plan requires monthly payments ranging from $50 to $100 per month. Ms. Ellis cannot afford to make these monthly payments. She works as a cook at the Lake St. Charles Retirement Home and receives $680 in income every two weeks. After paying her rent, utilities, car note, car insurance, and cell phone bill, she cannot afford to make all of her monthly payments, which total $300 or more a month.
221. Further, the grip of the municipal court system has stymied Ms. Ellis’ efforts to increase her income. Ms. Ellis recently applied for a job as an overnight cleaner at the Hollywood Casino. However, the Hollywood Casino will not hire Ms. Ellis because she has open arrest warrants for “Failure to Pay” and/or “Failure to Appear.” Thus, Defendant’s unlawful revenue-generation scheme not only has confiscated Ms. Ellis’ liberty and any spare money she is able to scrounge together, it also has impeded her ability to get a higher paying job that might allow her to finally get out of debt.
vii. Meredith Walker 222. Meredith Walker is a 47-year-old African-American mother of two living in Florissant, Missouri. 223. In the last five years, Ms. Walker has been jailed on at least ten occasions by St. Louis municipalities for unpaid fines from traffic tickets and other minor municipal violations; she has paid over $15,000 in fees, court costs, and bond forfeitures, making her unable to provide
44 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 45 of 70 PageID #: 714
for herself and her children; and she has lost her license—and consequently, her ability to find employment—because of her inability to afford to pay the fines.
224. Ms. Walker’s traffic tickets continue to plague her to this day, even though she has not been cited for a moving violation in over fifteen years.
225. At one point, Ms. Walker had warrants out for her arrest in eleven different municipalities, all of which stemmed from unpaid traffic tickets and charges for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” in connection with these unpaid traffic tickets.
226. In the last five years, Ms. Walker has been jailed in St. Ann on behalf of Normandy, Velda Village Hills, Calverton Park and Velda City. Each time, officers arrested Ms. Walker on warrants for “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear” that were issued in connection with unpaid traffic tickets that Ms. Walker could not afford to pay.
227. On almost all of these occasions, Ms. Walker experienced the so-called “munishuffle”: she was transferred from one municipal jail to another, paying bonds at each to secure her “release” to the next. A $500 bond was posted to secure Ms. Walker’s release from Normandy on February 7, 2012; a $500 bond was posted to secure Ms. Walker’s release from Calverton Park on November 1, 2012; a $100 bond was posted to secure Ms. Walker’s release from Velda Village Hills; a $500 bond was posted to secure Ms. Walker’s release from Normandy on February 4, 2014. Ms. Walker's mother or stepfather paid the bonds when they were able. If neither Ms. Walker or a relative could afford to pay bond, Ms. Walker remained in jail until jail officials (or the municipality on whose behalf she was held) decided to release her.
228. Ms. Walker has tried to pay off her debts to the municipalities, but simply cannot afford to do so. It is well known in the community that showing up at court without full payment
45 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 46 of 70 PageID #: 715
will lead to incarceration. As a result, Ms. Walker feared that if she went to court without the money to pay her fine, she would immediately be placed in jail.
229. Ms. Walker has been unsuccessfully trying to pay off approximately $3,000 of fines over the last four years. On multiple occasions, court clerks have told Ms. Walker that she resolved all her charges, only to discover more charges later. On other occasions, court clerks have failed to properly record payments made by Ms. Walker.
230. Ms. Walker’s inability to extricate herself from this cycle of debt and jailing has virtually destroyed Ms. Walker’s life.
231. Ms. Walker is unemployed and has been unable to find a new job because of her traffic record and because she does not have a valid license. Many of the positions for which she is otherwise qualified require a valid driver’s license to transport clients.
232. Ms. Walker has been forced to change her appearance, because she discovered that she was stopped by police officers more often when she had dreadlocks in her hair.
233. Ms. Walker does not have a valid driver’s license because she cannot afford to pay off all of her fines, costs, surcharges, and interest. As a result, Ms. Walker is forced to rely on family and friends to drive her to the store or to her son’s basketball games, placing strain on cherished relationships.
234. Ms. Walker has spent many holidays in jail for unpaid traffic tickets, missing time with family and friends.
235. Ms. Walker is unable to travel around the St. Louis area, in part because bus service in North County (where she lives) is unreliable, and in part because she is now terrified of the police.
46 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 47 of 70 PageID #: 716
viii. Mawoussime Adoboe 236. Mawoussime Adoboe is a 33-year-old mother of two children. Ms. Adoboe has been unemployed since 2012 and relies on welfare and social security to support herself. 237. On April 15, 2015, Ms. Adoboe was involved in a car accident. The police arrived at the scene of the car accident and conducted a field sobriety test, which police claimed Ms. Adoboe failed. The police officer cursed at her, called her a “bitch,” and said, “You know I don’t like you.” The St. John police arrested Ms. Adoboe for driving while intoxicated and took her to the St. John police station. The arresting police officer told other officers at the jail “not to give her a chance.” 238. The arresting police officer then took Ms. Adoboe to SSM Health DePaul Hospital - St. Louis, where she was administered a shot, although she did not know what it was for. She was also given a prescription for antibiotics, which the police officer filled before taking Ms. Adoboe to the St. Ann Jail on behalf of St. John. 239. Ms. Adoboe was held at the St. Ann Jail for eight days on $1,500 bond. Ms. Adoboe could not afford to pay the $1,500 bond amount, and therefore was not able to secure her release. 240. After several days, Ms. Adoboe’s family and friends were able to pool their financial resources to come up with the $1,500 for bond. However, when the father of Ms. Adoboe’s daughter attempted to post bond, St. Ann refused the payment without providing a reason. 241. Ms. Adoboe was never brought before a judge during her eight-day detention at the St. Ann jail, nor was she informed of her right to, or offered, a lawyer.
47 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 48 of 70 PageID #: 717
242. St. Ann’s jail refused to give Ms. Adoboe her medication for her serious chronic medical conditions.
243. St. Ann subjected Ms. Adoboe to the same deplorable jail conditions experienced by the other Plaintiffs and all others detained in the St. Ann Jail. The conditions in St. Ann Jail were filthy. Ms. Adoboe and other inmates requested supplies to clean their living space, but the guards refused. The cell in which Ms. Adoboe lived was designed to accommodate six people, but at times up to fifteen people were living in the cell. When there were more people than beds, inmates were forced to sleep on the floor.
244. Ms. Adoboe was allowed to shower only once every three days in a bathroom in filthy conditions.
245. St. Ann Jail Guards tossed cold food and inedible food onto the floor for the inmates to eat.
246. St. Ann Jail Guards were rude to inmates and indifferent to their needs, and called Ms. Adoboe “crazy” and an “African child” on multiple occasions.
247. One of Ms. Adoboe’s relatives attempted to come to the St. Ann Jail to visit her, but the guards never informed her and she was not allowed to meet with her relative.
248. Guards at the St. Ann Jail limited inmates’ use of phones. For example, if Ms. Adoboe placed a call and the person did not answer the first time, she was not allowed to call them back. The guards also limited the content of inmates’ phone calls, not allowing Ms. Adoboe to give any in-depth explanations to people on the phone.
249. After her “release” from the St. Ann Jail, Ms. Adoboe was transferred to the St. Charles Jail in connection with unpaid traffic tickets and “Failure to Pay” or “Failure to Appear”
48 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 49 of 70 PageID #: 718
charges in St. Charles. Ms. Adoboe was detained in the St. Charles Jail for six days, at which point she was able to post $250 bond to secure her release.
250. Ms. Adoboe’s detention had significant collateral consequences in addition to the suffering Ms. Adoboe endured in St. Ann Jail. For example, while she was incarcerated, Ms. Adoboe’s children were shifted from one person’s care to another on three different occasions.
251. On at least one other occasion, Ms. Adoboe was detained in the St. Ann Jail for a speeding ticket in St. Ann. Ms. Adoboe was unable to afford the $500 bond and therefore was forced to spend a night in the St. Ann Jail.
ix. Veronica Murphy 252. Veronica Murphy is a 31-year-old single African-American mother of two young children living in St. Louis, Missouri. 253. Ms. Murphy single-handedly supports her two minor children on a very limited income. 254. Ms. Murphy has been jailed in the St. Ann Jail “so many times [she] can’t remember” in connection with warrants issued by Bel-Ridge, Normandy, and St. Ann, among others. The warrants issued by Bel-Ridge initially stemmed from minor traffic infractions issued prior to 2009. 255. In April 2009, Ms. Murphy departed the University of Missouri-St. Louis campus after a college class to pick up her son—who was five years old at the time—at his school in Normandy, Missouri. She never arrived at the school because officers of the Normandy Police Department stopped Ms. Murphy just one block away.
49 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 50 of 70 PageID #: 719
256. The Normandy Police informed Ms. Murphy that they stopped her pursuant to an alleged warrant from the State of Texas. The Normandy Police arrested Ms. Murphy and towed her vehicle to an impound lot.
257. The two young Murphy children—ages three and five at the time—sat at their schools awaiting their mother until the schools were able to contact members of Ms. Murphy’s family to care for them.
258. The Normandy Police took Ms. Murphy to their precinct, fingerprinted and booked her, and notified Texas of her arrest. The State of Texas informed the Normandy Police that Ms. Murphy was not wanted for extradition.
259. Instead of releasing Ms. Murphy, Normandy Police checked their computer system and determined Ms. Murphy had an outstanding warrant from Bel-Ridge. The Normandy Police then transported Ms. Murphy to the St. Ann Jail.
260. St. Ann subjected Ms. Murphy to the same deplorable jail conditions experienced by the other Plaintiffs and all others detained in the St. Ann Jail. At the St. Ann Jail, Ms. Murphy endured what she now describes as “the worst memories of [her] life” in conditions most inhumane: St. Ann officials (1) forced Ms. Murphy to wear an orange jumpsuit “like [she] was in prison”; and (2) provided inadequate food sometimes consisting of only a honey bun and a packaged pot pie for an entire day—“all because [she is] a single mom who can’t pay a traffic ticket,” as Ms. Murphy attests.
261. Ms. Murphy was held in St. Ann Jail for two weeks. 262. During this time period (which included her birthday), the Murphy children were left motherless while Defendant St. Ann jailed Ms. Murphy on behalf of Bel-Ridge simply
50 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 51 of 70 PageID #: 720
because she could not afford to pay the bond amount set by Bel-Ridge, which, on information and belief, exceeded $500.
263. Once released from St. Ann Jail, Ms. Murphy could not afford to pay to retrieve her vehicle from impound; in fact, Ms. Murphy was never able to afford the impound fees to retrieve her car, and she ultimately lost the 1999 Chevy Cavalier which she once owned outright.
264. Since her initial two-week incarceration in 2009, Ms. Murphy has repeatedly been arrested based on her inability to pay fines and alleged “Failure to Appear” charges, including a most recent incarceration on Bel-Ridge’s warrant in May 2014.
265. Despite obtaining legal representation from ArchCity Defenders to address her myriad municipal charges, Ms. Murphy still faces imminent arrest in one or more of the Defendant Municipalities as of the filing of this Complaint.
266. Specifically, in April 2016, St. Ann issued a form recommendation sheet to notify Ms. Murphy that her fines total as much as $620.00 and—using a literal rubber stamp—that “WARRANT WILL REMAIN ACTIVE UNTIL PAID IN FULL.”
267. Then, in June 2016, when ArchCity Defenders requested that St. Ann recall the arrest warrant, St. Ann denied the recall request.
268. Because Ms. Murphy cannot foreseeably afford to pay off St. Ann, this warrant will remain active in perpetuity while Ms. Murphy continues to live in fear of the next time she is pulled over by police in the St. Louis region.
x. Charles Riley 269. Charles Riley is a 58 year-old man who resides in St. Louis, Missouri. He is African-American.
51 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 52 of 70 PageID #: 721
270. At all relevant times herein, Mr. Riley has had a disability related to back problems and back pain, and thus receives only $1,100 of monthly income in the form of Social Security disability payments.
271. Mr. Riley has been jailed by St. Ann twice in his lifetime for alleged minor municipal ordinance infractions.
272. On one Friday evening, October 25, 2013, Mr. Riley was driving his own vehicle when a St. Ann police officer pulled him over, allegedly for rolling through a stop sign.
273. The St. Ann officer informed Mr. Riley that he had an active failure to appear warrant in the municipality of Florissant, Missouri.
274. The St. Ann officer instructed Mr. Riley to step out of the vehicle. Mr. Riley complied, and the St. Ann officer placed Mr. Riley under arrest.
275. Mr. Riley then asked the St. Ann officer to allow Mr. Riley to turn off his vehicle to get his keys and his cell phone. The St. Ann officer denied Mr. Riley’s request, left the car running, and told Mr. Riley “We’re going to tow it anyway.”
276. The St. Ann officer placed Mr. Riley into the St. Ann police car and drove Mr. Riley to the St. Ann police station, where the officer asked Mr. Riley, “Do you have $350 to post bond?”
277. Mr. Riley informed the St. Ann police officer that he could not afford to pay the $350 bond, and asked the officer what the bond was for. The St. Ann officer replied, “Why should we believe you are going to come to court for us when you didn’t go to court for them [Florissant]?” There was no bail hearing.
52 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 53 of 70 PageID #: 722
278. St. Ann then locked Mr. Riley in a small jail cell with two (and at one point, three) other adult men, claiming that Mr. Riley should just wait because “Florissant is on their way.”
279. St. Ann subjected Mr. Riley to the same deplorable jail conditions experienced by the other Plaintiffs and all others detained in the St. Ann Jail. The jail cells were packed full of people. The cells were so filthy that Mr. Riley did not want to make contact with the walls or even the sleeping pads, which were dirty and appeared uncleaned.
280. The St. Ann Jail provided Mr. Riley with no hygiene or personal care items: no soap, no washrags, no toothbrushes, no toothpaste, and no deodorant. The cell contained a toilet fixture with a water faucet on its top, from which Mr. Riley and the other cellmates had to use their own cupped, dirty hands to capture drinking water.
281. Mr. Riley and the other inmates were served food by St. Ann that was unhealthy and nearly inedible. Every meal consisted of a bologna sandwich or canned spaghetti. Some breakfasts included a pre-packaged cinnamon roll and old milk.
282. Officers at the St. Ann Jail did not allow Mr. Riley or his cellmates to take a shower for several days. In fact, the only time the St. Ann Jail allowed Mr. Riley to take a shower was after two days, when one St. Ann jail officer—a cousin of a friend of Mr. Riley’s then-girlfriend—specifically allowed Mr. Riley to take a shower after being contacted by the officer’s cousin. When the officer called to Mr. Riley to allow him to shower, one of Mr. Riley’s cellmates begged for one, too, and the officer permitted only Mr. Riley and that cellmate to shower.
283. Mr. Riley had difficulty sleeping during his five days in the St. Ann Jail. St. Ann’s jail officers provided Mr. Riley (and the other inmates) a thin sheet and pillow as bedding
53 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 54 of 70 PageID #: 723
to use on the thin, dirty sleeping pads, which provided little warmth and no support. Mr. Riley had informed the St. Ann jail officers about his disability, his back injury, and his resulting chronic back pain, but the St. Ann jailers told Mr. Riley he could not receive any special accommodation or medicine because “Florissant is coming to get you soon.” Additionally, there were no windows in the St. Ann Jail cell, nor any clocks to tell whether it was morning or night, and the jail lights were always turned on.
284. Sometime during Mr. Riley’s incarceration at the St. Ann Jail, Mr. Riley’s girlfriend (now his wife) called Florissant police, who informed her at that time that they did not have any record of Mr. Riley being in custody in St. Ann, and that he was not on their list to be picked up.
285. Mr. Riley’s then-girlfriend also contacted a private attorney—who Mr. Riley later learned was and is a prosecutor and city counselor in several other municipalities—for assistance in securing Mr. Riley’s release. On information and belief, sometime on that Sunday (October 27, 2013), the attorney contacted someone at St. Ann’s government or jail to request Mr. Riley’s release.
286. Then, on Monday morning, the St. Ann jailers called out Mr. Riley’s name and instructed him to stand near an intercom in the Jail. The voice of a person Mr. Riley believed to be a judge’s clerk or prosecutor’s assistant—not a judge—spoke through the intercom and stated “You’ve been charged with running a stop sign. How do you want to plea?”
287. Mr. Riley asked the voice on the intercom why he had to enter a plea at that time, and why he could not simply be given a summons and court date. The voice on the intercom replied: “We’re trying to make it so you can go home and you don’t have to come back. If you plea guilty to the charges, we can let you go. We’ll send some paperwork down to you.” The
54 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 55 of 70 PageID #: 724
voice on the intercom did not provide Mr. Riley any notice of his right to counsel, nor did the voice seek to determine Mr. Riley’s ability to pay any fines or fees associated with the proposed guilty plea.
288. Mr. Riley felt he had to go along with St. Ann’s plan in order to be released expediently, as it was the only option presented to him.
289. Then, Mr. Riley was placed back in his cell to wait until that Monday evening, when the plea paperwork finally arrived. Mr. Riley signed it, at which time the St. Ann jailers reassured Mr. Riley that Florissant was going to come get him.
290. The rest of Monday night passed, along with all day Tuesday, while Mr. Riley continued to languish in the St. Ann Jail, waiting on Florissant.
291. Finally, after five days in the St. Ann Jail, on the afternoon of Wednesday, October 30, 2013, the Florissant police arrived at the St. Ann Jail to pick up Mr. Riley. Mr. Riley then spent several hours in a Florissant police van, picking up and dropping off other jailed individuals from other municipalities, before arriving at the Florissant police station early Wednesday evening. His then-girlfriend posted a $300 bond to free Mr. Riley from Florissant’s jail.
292. The next day, Mr. Riley returned to St. Ann to free his vehicle from impound. St. Ann said it was going to cost $400-500 to get the vehicle released. Mr. Riley told St. Ann he did not have the money, so he asked if he could go to the tow yard and collect his personal belongings from the vehicle.
293. St. Ann officials told Mr. Riley he had to pay them $100 for the right to access the vehicle for the limited purpose of collecting his personal belongings. Mr. Riley paid St. Ann’s $100 demand.
55 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 56 of 70 PageID #: 725
294. When Mr. Riley arrived at the tow yard with which St. Ann contracted to store inmates’ vehicles, an employee at the tow yard would not permit Mr. Riley to collect his items, stating that he was “not supposed to do that,” but took another $20 from Mr. Riley and went to the vehicle himself, bringing back Mr. Riley’s cell phone, keys, wallet, and garage door opener.
295. The tow yard employee informed Mr. Riley he had 30 days to pay to get his vehicle out of impound (at a daily fee of approximately $100) or the vehicle would be sold.
296. Mr. Riley could not afford this amount of money, and lost his vehicle—a convertible Ford Mustang—along with approximately $300 worth of personal tools in the trunk of the vehicle.
297. In addition to the loss of his personal vehicle and tools, Mr. Riley endured physical pain and mental anguish during the five days he spent caged in St. Ann’s Jail, and also suffered embarrassment in front of friends and family, as his incarceration prevented Mr. Riley from participating in a dear friend’s wedding as a groomsman on October 26, 2013. E. Class Allegations
298. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, for the purpose of asserting the claims alleged in this Complaint on a common basis.
299. A class action is a superior means, and the only practicable means, by which Plaintiffs and unknown Class members can challenge the Defendant’s unlawful debt-collection scheme.
300. This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a Class action pursuant to Rule 23(a)(1)-(4), Rule 23(b)(2), and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
301. This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of those provisions.
56 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 57 of 70 PageID #: 726
302. Plaintiffs propose two Classes: a Declaratory and Injunctive Class and a Damages Class.
303. The Declaratory and Injunctive Class is defined as: All persons who currently owe or who will incur debts to the Defendant from fines, fees, costs, or surcharges arising from cases in the Defendant’s courts.
304. The Damages Class is defined as: All persons who, from August 9, 2011, until the present, were held in jail by or on behalf of Defendant because of the persons’ non-payment of a monetary sum required by Defendant or a neighboring municipality as a result of the individuals’ inability to pay.
1. Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) 305. Over the past five years, thousands of people have owed and currently owe Defendant or neighboring municipalities money from old traffic tickets and other minor municipal offenses. Pursuant to Defendant’s policies and practices, Defendant has placed thousands of people, who have indicated that they are too poor to pay their debts in total, on payment plans that are arbitrary, exorbitant, and inconsistent with the debtors’ ability to pay. All of these people are currently being threatened with arrest and jailing if they do not make the payments in the amount or frequency purportedly required by Defendant. 306. Defendant has kept hundreds of people in its jail for non-payment in each of the past five years. Defendant retains, and is required by law to retain, records of these instances. 307. Pursuant to Defendant’s policies and practices, those kept in jail by Defendant for non-payment did not receive meaningful inquiries into their ability to pay as required by federal and Missouri law. Pursuant to Defendant’s policies, Defendant made no determinations of indigence, ability to pay hearings, or evaluations of alternatives to incarceration, and Defendant
57 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 58 of 70 PageID #: 727
provided none of the relevant state and federal protections for debtors. Nor were those jailed by Defendant provided adequate counsel to represent them.
308. Those who still owe Defendant debt payments or who will incur such debts likely will be subjected to the same ongoing policies and practices absent the relief sought in this Complaint.
2. Commonality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). 309. The relief sought is common to all members of the Injunctive and Damages Classes, and common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Classes. The Plaintiffs seek relief concerning whether Defendant’s policies, practices, and procedures violated their rights and relief mandating Defendant to change its policies, practices, and procedures so that the Plaintiffs’ rights will be protected in the future. 310. Among the most important, but not the only, common questions of fact are:
a. Whether Defendant has a policy and practice of keeping people in its jail who owe money on old judgments unless and until they can pay a monetary sum;
b. Whether Defendant has a policy and practice of failing to conduct meaningful inquiries into the ability of a person to pay before jailing the person for non-payment;
c. Whether Defendant provides notice to debtors that their ability to pay will be a relevant issue at the proceedings at which they are jailed or kept in jail and whether Defendant makes findings concerning ability to pay and alternatives to incarceration;
d. Whether Defendant provides adequate legal representation to those jailed for unpaid debts in proceedings that result in their incarceration;
e. Whether Defendant’s employees and agents have a policy and practice of threatening debtors and families of debtors with incarceration for unpaid debts without informing them of their rights;
58 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 59 of 70 PageID #: 728
f. Whether Defendant has a policy and practice of issuing and executing warrants for the arrest of debtors despite lacking probable cause that they have committed any offense and without any notice or opportunity to be heard concerning their ability to pay or the validity of the debt;
g. Whether Defendant seeks to extort funds from poor residents of the St. Louis area by ensnaring them in an escalating spiral of indebtedness and imprisonment;
h. Whether Defendant’s policies and practices discriminate on the basis of race or other impermissible factors; and
i. Whether the St. Ann Jail conditions are and have been unsanitary, unsafe, and inhumane in the ways described in this Second Amended Complaint.
311. Among the most important common question of law are:
a. Whether keeping people in jail solely because they cannot afford to make a monetary payment is lawful;
b. Whether people are entitled to a meaningful inquiry into their ability to pay before being jailed by Defendant for non-payment of debts;
c. Whether people who cannot afford to pay Defendant are entitled to the consideration of alternatives to incarceration before being jailed for non-payment of debts;
d. Whether people are entitled to adequate legal representation in debt-collection proceedings initiated and litigated by Defendant prosecutors that result in their incarceration if they cannot afford an attorney;
e. Whether Defendant may jail, threaten to jail, and use other harsh debt-collection measures (such as ordering payment of significant portions of a person’s public assistance benefits) against debtors who cannot afford immediately to pay Defendant in full;
f. Whether Defendant may arrest people based solely on their nonpayment without any probable cause that they have committed any willful conduct or other offense and without notice and an opportunity to be heard concerning legal predicates for a valid detention, such as their ability to pay and the validity of the debt; and
59 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 60 of 70 PageID #: 729
g. Whether the jail conditions described in the Second Amended Complaint violate federal law.
3. Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). 312. The named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Classes and Subclasses respectively, and they have the same interests in this case as all other members of the Classes that they represent. Each of them suffered injuries from the failure of Defendant to comply with the basic constitutional provisions detailed below. The answer to whether Defendant’s policies and practices ae unconstitutional will determine the claims of the named Plaintiffs and every other Class member. 313. If the named Plaintiffs succeed in their claims that the Defendant’s policies and practices concerning debt collection for fines, fees, costs, and surcharges violate the law in the ways alleged in each claim of the Complaint, then that ruling will likewise benefit every other member of the Injunctive and Damages Classes. 4. Adequacy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). 314. The named Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Classes because they are members of the Classes and because their interests coincide with, and are not antagonistic to, those of the Classes. There are no known conflicts of interest among Class members, all of whom have a similar interest in vindicating the constitutional rights to which they are entitled. 315. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, a firm with experience litigating complex civil rights matters in federal court and extensive knowledge of both the details of the Defendant’s scheme and the relevant constitutional and statutory law. Plaintiffs are also represented by attorneys from ArchCity Defenders, who have extensive experience with the functioning of the entire municipal court system through their
60 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 61 of 70 PageID #: 730
representation of numerous impoverished people in the St. Louis area.17
316. The efforts of Plaintiffs’ counsel have so far included extensive investigation over
a period of months, including numerous interviews with witnesses, Defendant’s employees,
Defendant’s jail inmates, families, attorneys practicing in the Defendant’s Municipal Courts,
community members, statewide experts in the functioning of Missouri municipal courts, and
national experts in constitutional law, debt collection, bankruptcy law, criminal law, and forced
labor.
317. Counsel have also observed numerous courtroom hearings in St. Ann and other
municipalities across the region in order to compile a detailed understanding of state law and
practices as they relate to federal constitutional requirements. Counsel have studied the way that
these systems function in other cities in order to investigate the wide array of options in practice
for municipalities.
318. As a result, counsel have devoted enormous time and resources to becoming
17 ArchCity Defenders is a non-profit public interest law firm based in Saint Louis. It has represented the poor and homeless in cases involving municipalities in the St. Louis region for the past five years and is an expert on the ways in which Defendant’s illegal practices and policies make and keep people poor. ArchCity Defenders has recently brought class actions in the Eastern District of Missouri restricting the use of chemical munitions on peaceful protesters, is co-counsel on two federal class actions alleging the operation of debtors’ prisons in Ferguson and Jennings, Missouri, two additional class actions ending cash bail, and an additional series of state class action suits alleging the imposition of illegal fees and fines in various municipal courts in the St. Louis County region. See Templeton v. Dotson, 4:14-cv-01019; Jenkins et al. v. City of Jennings, 15-cv-252-CEJ (E.D. Mo. 2015); Fant et al. v. City of Ferguson, 15-cv-253AGF (E.D. Mo. 2015); Powell v. City of St. Ann 4:15-cv-840 (E.D. Mo. 2015); Pierce v. City of Velda City, 4:15-CV-570 (E.D. Mo. 2015); White v. City of Pine Lawn, 14SL-CC04194 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Dec. 2014); Pruitt v. City of Wellston, 14SL-CC04192 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Dec. 2014); Lampkin v. City of Jennings, 14SL-CC04207 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Dec. 2014); Wann v. City of St. Louis, 1422-CC10272 (St. Louis City Cir. Ct., Dec. 2014); Reed v. City of Ferguson, 14SL-CC04195 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Dec. 2014); Eldridge v. City of St. John, 15SL-00456 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Feb. 2015); Watkins v. City of Florissant, 16SL-CC00165 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct., Jan. 2016). ArchCity Defenders also published an extensive report detailing these practices and policies in the cities of Bel-Ridge, Ferguson, and Florissant in August of 2014. The report is available at http://www.archcitydefenders.org.
61 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 62 of 70 PageID #: 731
intimately familiar with the Defendant’s scheme and with all of the relevant state and federal laws and procedures that can and should govern it. Counsel also have developed relationships with many of the individuals and families most victimized by Defendant’s practices.
319. The interests of the members of the Class will be fairly and adequately protected by the Plaintiffs and their attorneys.
5. Rule 23(b)(2) 320. Class action status is appropriate because Defendant, through its policies, practices, and procedures that make up its traffic and ordinance debt-collection scheme, has acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Declaratory and Injunctive Classes. 321. A declaration that Defendant cannot jail people solely because they cannot afford to make a monetary payment will apply to each Class member. 322. Similarly, a determination that Class members are entitled, as a matter of federal law, to a meaningful inquiry into their ability to pay and an evaluation of alternatives to incarceration before they are jailed by Defendant for non-payment will apply to each Class member. 323. The same applies to rulings on the other claims, including: that Class members are entitled to representation by counsel at proceedings initiated and litigated by Defendant’s prosecutors in connection with which they are jailed; that the Defendant cannot imprison Class members for debts; that the Defendant cannot collect debts from Class members in a manner that violates and evades all of the relevant protections for other judgment debtors; and that the Defendant cannot issue and execute arrest warrants for traffic debtors without probable cause that they have committed an offense and without notice or a hearing prior to the deprivation of
62 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 63 of 70 PageID #: 732
their liberty. 324. Injunctive relief compelling Defendant to comply with these constitutional rights
will similarly protect each member of the Class from being again subjected to the Defendant’s unlawful policies and practices with respect to the debts that they still owe and protect those who will incur such debts in the future from the same unconstitutional conduct. Therefore, declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a whole is appropriate.
6. Rule 23(b)(3) 325. Class treatment under Rule 23(b)(3) is also appropriate because the common questions of law and fact overwhelmingly predominate in this case. This case turns, for every Plaintiff, on what the Defendant’s policies and practices are and on whether those policies are lawful. 326. The common questions of law and fact listed above are dispositive questions in the case of every member of the Classes and Subclasses. The question of liability can therefore be determined on a class-wide basis. Class-wide treatment of liability is a far superior method of determining the content and legality of the Defendant’s policies and practices than individual suits by hundreds or thousands of Defendant’s residents. The question of damages will also be driven by class-wide determinations. 327. To the extent that individual damages will vary, they will vary depending in large part on the amount of time that a person was unlawfully jailed. Determining damages for individual Class members can thus typically be handled in a ministerial fashion based on easily verifiable records of the length of unlawful incarceration. If need be, individual hearings on Class-member specific damages based on special circumstances can be held after Class-wide
63 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 64 of 70 PageID #: 733
liability is determined—a method far more efficient than the wholesale litigation of hundreds or thousands of individual lawsuits.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I
Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment—Imprisonment For Inability To Pay 328. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all previous and subsequent paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 329. The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibit imprisoning a person for failure to pay money owed to the government if that person is indigent and unable to pay. 330. Defendant, through its police department, municipal court system, city prosecuting attorneys’ office, and jail, imprisoned and/or threatened to imprison each of the Plaintiffs when they could not afford to pay debts allegedly owed for traffic and other minor offenses without conducting any inquiry into their ability to pay and without conducting any inquiry into alternatives to imprisonment, as required by the United States Constitution. At any moment, a person with financial resources in the Plaintiffs’ positions could have paid a sum of cash and been released from jail. 331. Defendant maintained and continues to maintain a policy and practice of (i) imprisoning, or threatening to imprison, people, including Plaintiffs, when they cannot afford to pay the debts allegedly owed from traffic and other minor offenses, (ii) directing its police officers to issue fine-laden citations for minor infractions in an effort to raise city revenues, (iii) encouraging the prosecution and incarceration of indigent Plaintiffs who were unable to pay fines, and (iv) keeping people, including Plaintiffs, in jail unless and until they are able to pay arbitrarily determined (and constantly shifting) sums of money.
64 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 65 of 70 PageID #: 734
332. Defendant’s actions violated, and continue to violate, Plaintiffs’ rights, and the rights of others similarly situated, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendant is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
333. As a direct result of Defendant’s unlawful practices, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have suffered extensive damages, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, anxiety, anguish, feeling of unjust treatment, fear, and lost earnings.
COUNT II Violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments—Failure to Provide Adequate Counsel
334. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all previous and subsequent paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.
335. Defendant, through its police department, municipal court system, city prosecuting attorneys’ office, and jail, violated Plaintiffs’ rights, and the rights of others similarly situated, to the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, have been and continue to be imprisoned by Defendant in connection with debt-collection proceedings in which those people jailed are not afforded counsel.
336. Defendant’s policy and practice of not providing adequate counsel at hearings in which indigent people are ordered to be imprisoned in the Defendant’s jail for unpaid debts (which are, in turn, based on payment plans arising from traffic and other violations at which the jailed individuals also were unrepresented), violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Defendant is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
337. As a direct result of the Defendant’s unlawful practices, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have suffered extensive damages, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, anxiety, anguish, feeling of unjust treatment, fear, and lost earnings.
65 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 66 of 70 PageID #: 735
COUNT III Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment—Indefinite and Arbitrary Detention 338. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all previous and subsequent paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 339. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits incarcerating people indefinitely and without adequate procedural protections. Defendant, through its police department, municipal court system, city prosecuting attorneys’ office, and jail, has engaged in a policy and practice of jailing the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated without any meaningful legal process through which they can challenge their detention by keeping them confined in Defendant’s jail unless and until they can make arbitrarily and inconsistently established cash payments, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendant is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 340. As a direct result of Defendant’s unlawful practices, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have suffered extensive damages, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, anxiety, anguish, feeling of unjust treatment, fear, and lost earnings.
COUNT IV Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments—Issuance of Invalid Warrants
341. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all previous and subsequent paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.
342. Defendant’s policy and practice, which it implements through its through its police department, municipal court system, city prosecuting attorneys’ office, and jail, is to issue and serve arrest warrants against those who have not paid their debt from old judgments in traffic and other minor cases. These warrants are sought, issued, and served without any inquiry into the person’s ability to pay even when Defendant has prior knowledge that the person is impoverished and unable to pay the debts or possesses other valid defenses.
66 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 67 of 70 PageID #: 736
343. These warrants are regularly sought, issued, and served without any finding of probable cause that the person has committed the elements of any offense. Defendant chooses to pursue warrants instead of issuing summons even when it has spoken to people on the phone or in person and has the opportunity to notify them to appear in court.
344. Defendant enforces a policy of allowing wealthy residents or residents who can afford to hire an attorney to remove their warrants but refusing to remove warrant. Moreover, Defendant’s policy and practice of not presenting arrestees in court or unreasonably delaying presentment for days or weeks for no legitimate reason is unlawful.
345. These practices violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and result in a deprivation of fundamental liberty without adequate due process. Defendant is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
346. As a direct result of the Defendant’s unlawful practices, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have suffered extensive damages, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, anxiety, anguish, feeling of unjust treatment, fear, and lost earnings.
COUNT V Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment—Threats of Incarceration to Collect Debts
347. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all previous and subsequent paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.
348. The United States Supreme Court has held that, when a government seeks to recoup costs of prosecution from indigent defendants—for example, the cost of appointed counsel—it may not take advantage of its position to impose unduly restrictive methods of collection solely because the debt is owed to the government and not to a private creditor.
349. By incarcerating the Plaintiffs and threatening to incarcerate them, Defendant, acting through its through its police department, municipal court system, city prosecuting
67 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 68 of 70 PageID #: 737
attorneys’ office, and jail, takes advantage of its control over the machinery of the penal and police systems to deny debtors the statutory protections that every other debtor may invoke against a private creditor. This coercive policy and practice constitutes invidious discrimination and violates the fundamental principles of equal protection of the laws. Defendant is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
350. As a direct result of the Defendant’s unlawful practices, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have suffered extensive damages, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, anxiety, anguish, feeling of unjust treatment, fear, and lost earnings.
COUNT VI Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment—Deplorable and Unconstitutional Jail Conditions
351. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all previous and subsequent paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.
352. The unsafe, unsanitary, inhumane, and dangerous conditions of confinement in the St. Ann Jail constitute impermissible punishment unrelated to any criminal judgment. Even if they had been imposed after valid conviction, the conditions would constitute cruel and unusual treatment. The deplorable and excessively harsh conditions in the Defendant’s jail are unnecessary to accomplish any legitimate government objective and shock the conscience of any reasonable person concerned with human dignity and liberty.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court issue the following relief:
a. Certification of the Declaratory and Injunctive Class and Subclasses and the Damages Class, as defined above;
b. A declaratory judgment that Defendant violated, and continues to violate, Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights by imprisoning them for their inability to pay a debt without conducting
68 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 69 of 70 PageID #: 738
any meaningful inquiry into their ability to pay or into any alternatives to incarceration; c. A declaratory judgment that Defendant violated, and continues to violate, Plaintiffs’ rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments by imprisoning them without appointing adequate counsel at the proceedings that led to their incarceration; d. A declaratory judgment that Defendant violated, and continues to violate, Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights by holding them indefinitely and arbitrarily in jail independent of any valid legal process; e. A declaratory judgment that Defendant violated, and continues to violate, Plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by issuing and serving arrest warrants without probable cause to believe that the elements of an offense had been committed, with unreasonable delay prior to presentment, and without providing pre-deprivation of liberty process where such process is easily available to Defendant; f. An order and judgment permanently enjoining Defendant from enforcing the above-described unconstitutional policies and practices against Plaintiffs and others similarly situated; g. A declaratory judgment that Defendant violated Plaintiffs’ equal protection rights by imposing harsh debt collection measures not imposed on debtors whose creditors are private entities; h. A declaratory judgment that Defendant violated Plaintiffs’ rights by subjecting them to unconstitutional jail conditions; i. A judgment compensating the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for the damages that they suffered as a result of Defendant’s unconstitutional and unlawful conduct; and j. An order and judgment granting reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 18 U.S.C. § 1595, and any other relief this Court deems just and proper.
69 of 70

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 96 Filed: 07/21/17 Page: 70 of 70 PageID #: 739

Dated: July 21, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
By:____/s/ S. Zachary Fayne________________ S. Zachary Fayne (admitted pro hac vice) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 471-3114 Fax: (415) 471-3400 Zachary.Fayne@apks.com
David B. Bergman (admitted pro hac vice) Seth J. Wiener (admitted pro hac vice) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Tel: (202) 942-5000 Fax: (202 942-5999 David.Bergman@apks.com Seth.Wiener@apks.com
Thomas B. Harvey (MBE #61734MO) Michael-John Voss (MBE #61742MO) Blake A. Strode (MBE #68422MO) Nathaniel Carroll (MBE #67988MO) Brendan Roediger, Of Counsel (MBE #6287213IL) ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, INC. 1210 Locust Street Saint Louis, MO 63103 Tel: (855) 724-2489 Fax: (314) 925-1307 tharvey@archcitydefenders.org mjvoss@archcitydefenders.org bstrode@archcitydefenders.org ncarroll@archcitydefenders.org broedige@slu.edu
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

70 of 70

 
 Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 149 Filed: 09/14/18 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #: 953

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

QUINTON M. THOMAS, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

) Case No. 4:16 CV 1302 RWS

)

CITY OF ST. ANN,

)

)

Defendant,

)

ORDER

Plaintiffs in this matter have filed a class action lawsuit asserting claims against

Defendant City of St. Ann alleging constitutional violations arising from Plaintiffs’

arrest and incarceration as a result of their failure to pay fines for municipal ordinance

violations (Counts I-V). Plaintiffs also have asserted a Fourteenth Amendment claim

based on the jail conditions at the City of St. Ann Jail for pre-trial detainees. (Count

VI).

St. Ann filed two motions to dismiss. The first seeks the dismissal of Counts I-

V. The second is directed to Count VI. St. Ann asserts that the actions Plaintiffs

allege as the basis of Counts I-V were not committed by the City of St. Ann. It

asserts that the actions were taken by or at the direction of the St. Ann’s municipal

division of the Missouri state circuit court. Because this entity is an arm of the state

of Missouri, St. Ann asserts these claims are shielded by Eleventh Amendment

immunity and should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 149 Filed: 09/14/18 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #: 954
St. Ann ignores the allegations in the second amended complaint that St. Ann adopted unconstitutional policies and practices for the purpose of increasing the City’s revenues. The second amended complaint also asserts that these policies were carried out by City employees, including police officers and clerks. As a result, Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded their cause of action against St. Ann.
St. Ann also asserts that it is immune from suit because all of the individuals the second amended complaint identifies as participats in the contested practices are personally immune from suit. The United States Court of Appeal for the Eight Circuit has rejected this arguement. Sample v. City of Woodbury, 836 F.3d 913, 917 (8th Cir. 2016).
St. Ann’s motion to dismiss Court VI regarding the conditions of its jail is also without merit. Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint asserts claims which, if true, would clearly state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. The second amended complaint alleges that pre-trial detainees were not allowed to take showers for days or weeks; were subjected to cold temperatures with insufficient blankets causing them to huddle together for warmth; denied the detainees basic hygiene supplies; provided insufficient nutrition; and put detainees in grossly overcrowded cells. Although St. Ann disputes the details of each of these claims, these allegations are sufficient to state a claim. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 536–37 (1979) (Pre-trial detainees may be subjected to restrictions and conditions of a detention facility so long as those
2

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-RWS Doc. #: 149 Filed: 09/14/18 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #: 955
conditions and restrictions do not amount to punishment, or otherwise violate the Constitution.)
In reviewing this case it appears that Plaintiffs’ claims in Count’s I-V regarding St. Ann’s alleged unconstitutional arrest and incarceration policies are separate and distinct from their claims regarding the unconsitutional conditions at the St. Ann jail. I believe that these claims should be severed and proceed in separate class action cases. Both cases would remain assigned to me and discovery may be coordinated to avoid duplicative or conflicting issues. As a result, before this case is set for a case management scheduling conference the parties shall show cause why this case should not be severed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant City of St. Ann’s motions to dismiss [106 and 108] are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall show cause no later than September 21, 2018 why Counts I-V should not be severed from Count VI.
_____________________________ RODNEY W. SIPPEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 14th day of September, 2018.
3

 
 Case: 4:16-cv-01302-SEP Doc. #: 152 Filed: 10/04/18 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 1000

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

QUINTON M. THOMAS, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

) Case No. 4:16 CV 1302 RWS

)

CITY OF ST. ANN,

)

)

Defendant,

)

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ claims in Count VI regarding

the conditions of the City of St. Ann’s jail are SEVERED from this case.

IT IS FURHTER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ claims in Count VI are

DISMISSED without prejudice from the present case subject to being refiled in a

new case.

IT IS FURHTER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall open a new

civil matter without fees and docket Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint [96] in the

new case. The attorneys of record in this case shall be added to the new case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file an second amended

complaint in the newly opened case, no later than October 12, 2018, asserting only

their claims relevant to Count VI.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall file an answer to the

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-SEP Doc. #: 152 Filed: 10/04/18 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 1001
second amended complaint in the newly opened case no later than October 19, 2018.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an order(s) will be issued setting a Rule 16 Conference in both these cases as soon as the new case is opened.
_____________________________ RODNEY W. SIPPEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 4th day of October, 2018.
2

 
 Case: 4:16-cv-01302-SEP Doc. #: 186 Filed: 09/03/19 Page: 1 of 8 PageID #: 1246

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

QUINTON M. THOMAS, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

No. 4:16 CV 1302 RWS

)

THE CITY OF ST. ANN,

)

)

Defendant.

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs in this matter have filed a class action lawsuit asserting claims against Defendant City of St. Ann (the City) alleging constitutional violations arising from Plaintiffs’ arrest and incarceration as a result of their failure to pay fines for municipal ordinance violations (Counts I-V). Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. The City filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint for failure to join an indispensable party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. There are four related cases in this Court which are being litigated by the same counsel representing Plaintiffs and the City in the present case. Those cases are Fant v. City of Ferguson, 4:15 CV 253 AGF, Baker v. City of Florissant, 4:16 CV 1693 NAB, Davis v. City of Normandy, 4:18 CV 1514 RLW, and Webb v. City of

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-SEP Doc. #: 186 Filed: 09/03/19 Page: 2 of 8 PageID #: 1247
Maplewood, 4:16 CV 1703 CDP. Counsel for City of St. Ann, City of Ferguson, City of Florissant, City of Normandy, and City of Maplewood filed substantially similar motions to dismiss in all of these cases asserting that plaintiffs have failed to join the municipal court in each city as an indispensable party in the lawsuits. The four judges presiding over the related cases have all denied the motions to dismiss that the City also filed in the present case. I agree with those opinions and I adopt and share their analysis of the issues raised by the City. I specifically adopt the opinion of United States District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig issued on August 6, 2019 as follows:
The City’s present motion asserts arguments similar to those the City raised in prior motions but reframes them in terms of Rule 19. In short, the City argues that Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges are directed solely to the conduct of the St. Ann Municipal Court (the “municipal court”), which the City argues is a separate entity, and that the municipal court is therefore required to be joined as a codefendant under Rule 19(a). But the City argues that joinder is not feasible because the municipal court is an arm of the state under Missouri law and, as such, entitled to sovereign immunity. The City contends that because there is a potential for injury to the interests of the municipal court and because the municipal court is immune from suit, dismissal of the claims at issue is required under Rule 19(b). For the reasons set forth below, I will deny the City’s motion.
2

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-SEP Doc. #: 186 Filed: 09/03/19 Page: 3 of 8 PageID #: 1248
DISCUSSION Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7) permits dismissal of a claim for failure to join a party under Rule 19. Rule 19, in turn, sets forth a two-part inquiry. First, the Court must determine whether the absent person’s presence is “required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1). Joinder is required when: (A) in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or (B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person’s absence may: (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to
protect the interest; or (ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring
double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1). “[T]he focus of Rule 19(a)(1) is on relief between the parties and not on the speculative possibility of further litigation between a party and an absent person.” Cedar Rapids Bank & Tr. Co. v. Mako One Corp., 919 F.3d 529, 534–35 (8th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). When joinder is not required under Rule 19(a), “the inquiry is at an end, and the motion to dismiss for failure to join the party in
3

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-SEP Doc. #: 186 Filed: 09/03/19 Page: 4 of 8 PageID #: 1249
question must be denied.” Rochester Methodist Hosp. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 728 F.2d 1006, 1016 (8th Cir. 1984).
If joinder is required but not feasible, a court must proceed to the second step and “determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed,” considering several enumerated factors. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b). Factors to consider include (1) the extent to which a judgment in the required person’s absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties; (2) the extent to which such prejudice could be lessened or avoided by protective provisions or otherwise shaping the relief to be granted; (3) the adequacy of a judgment rendered in the person’s absence; and (4) whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b). In analyzing these factors in the context of a claim of sovereign immunity, a court must give sufficient weight to the sovereign status of the absent person, which “in some instances, [will mean] that the plaintiffs will be left without a forum for definitive resolution of their claims.” Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851, 872 (2008).
The Rule 19 inquiry is a “highly-practical, fact-based endeavor,” and courts are “generally reluctant to grant motions to dismiss of this type.” Fort Yates Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 4 v. Murphy ex rel. C.M.B., 786 F.3d 662, 671 (8th Cir. 2015). “A decision under Rule 19 not to decide a case otherwise properly before the court is a
4

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-SEP Doc. #: 186 Filed: 09/03/19 Page: 5 of 8 PageID #: 1250
power to be exercised only in rare instances.” Nanko Shipping, USA v. Alcoa, Inc., 850 F.3d 461, 465 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted).
I conclude that the municipal court in St. Ann is not a required party under Rule 19(a). Rule 19(a)(1)(A)’s condition that a court be able to accord complete relief “does not mean that every type of relief sought must be available, only that meaningful relief be available.” Henne v. Wright, 904 F.2d 1208, 1212 n.4 (8th Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted). Here, the present litigation is able to accord meaningful relief to Plaintiffs without joinder of the municipal court. Plaintiffs seek money damages from the City, a declaration that the City violated their constitutional rights, and an injunction enjoining the City from enacting and enforcing its allegedly unlawful policies and customs. This lawsuit may provide such relief to the extent that Plaintiffs’ claims prove to be viable and meritorious. The City’s argument that the municipal court, and not the City, caused the alleged constitutional violations may be a reason to deny relief on Plaintiffs’ claims, but it does not support a finding under Rule 19(a)(1) that joinder of the municipal court is required. See, e.g., Gwartz v. Jefferson Mem’l Hosp. Ass’n, 23 F.3d 1426, 1429 (8th Cir. 1994) (“Whether the asserted facts support claims other than the ones before the court or whether the complaint here adequately states [the plaintiffs’] claims . . . are not the issues under Rule 19(a)(1).”).
5

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-SEP Doc. #: 186 Filed: 09/03/19 Page: 6 of 8 PageID #: 1251
Likewise, under Rule 19(a)(1)(B), even assuming that the municipal court has an interest relating to the subject of the action, disposition of the action in the municipal court’s absence will not as a practical matter impair or impede the municipal court’s ability to protect its interest. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B)(i). In support of its argument to the contrary, the City relies primarily on the Eighth Circuit’s opinion in Two Shields v. Wilkinson, 790 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2015). In that case, the plaintiffs claimed that the named defendants induced an absent sovereign, the United States, to breach its fiduciary duty by approving leases for interests in land held in trust. Id. at 792-93. In other words, in order to prevail on their claims against the named defendants, the plaintiffs were required to prove that the absent sovereign acted illegally. Id. at 796. A judgment entered in the sovereign’s absence would thus “potentially cloud the validity of many of the land grants approved by the government.” Id. For this reason, the Eighth Circuit found that the United States’ ability to protect its interest would be impaired or impeded by its absence from the litigation. Id. at 797.
By contrast, here, none of Plaintiffs’ claims requires a showing that the municipal court acted illegally. Rather, for Plaintiffs to succeed on their claims, they must demonstrate that the City acted unlawfully.1 See Fochtman v. Darp,
1 The other cases relied upon by the City are even more readily distinguishable. Pimentel was an interpleader action in which the parties conceded that the absent sovereign claiming an interest in the assets at issue was a required party under Rule 19(a).
6

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-SEP Doc. #: 186 Filed: 09/03/19 Page: 7 of 8 PageID #: 1252
Inc., No. 5:18-CV-5047, 2018 WL 3148113, at *6–7 (W.D. Ark. June 27, 2018) (distinguishing Two Shields on this ground and holding that an absent sovereign’s more remote interest in the outcome of a case was insufficient to require joinder).
Nor would the municipal court’s absence subject the City to a substantial risk of incurring double or otherwise inconsistent obligations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B)(ii). The City’s own argument supports such a holding. The City asserts that, as a matter of law, it cannot be held liable for the municipal court’s conduct. If the City is correct, and if the actions complained of were caused by the municipal court, then as explained above, Plaintiffs’ claims may fail on the merits. But resolution of these issues does not require the municipal court’s joinder. See Gwartz, 23 F.3d at 1430. Because the municipal court is not a required party under Rule 19(a), I need not address whether dismissal is required under Rule 19(b). The City’s motion must be denied. In light of the extensive briefing submitted on these issues, oral argument is unnecessary.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above,
553 U.S. at 864. And Ray v. Judicial Corrections Services, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-02819RDP, 2017 WL 660842 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 17, 2017) and McMillian v. Johnson, No. CV93-A-699-N, 1994 WL 904652 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 18, 1994), were not Rule 19 cases at all but involved motions for summary judgment and to dismiss for failure to state a claim, respectively, which are more appropriate vehicles for resolving merits arguments like the ones the City raises.
7

Case: 4:16-cv-01302-SEP Doc. #: 186 Filed: 09/03/19 Page: 8 of 8 PageID #: 1253
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss Counts I through V through VII, and motion for oral argument of the motion [166 and 169] are both DENIED.
_______________________________ RODNEY W. SIPPEL UNITED STATES DISCTRICT JUDGE Dated this 3rd day of September, 2019.
8

 
 ADR,PROTO,TRCK3
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:16−cv−01302−SEP

Thomas et al v. St. Ann, Missouri, City of et al Assigned to: District Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk Related Case: 4:18−cv−01514−RLW Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights In Re
Maurice B Graham

Date Filed: 08/09/2016 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Quinton M. Thomas

represented by Blake Alexander Strode ARCHCITY DEFENDERS 440 N. 4th St. Suite 390 St. Louis, MO 63102 855−724−2489 x1003 Fax: 314−925−1307 Email: bstrode@archcitydefenders.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward James Hall ARCHCITY DEFENDERS 440 N. 4th St. Suite 390 St. Louis, MO 63102 855−724−2489 Fax: 314−925−1307 Email: e.j.hall89@gmail.com TERMINATED: 04/12/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Hanlon ARCHCITY DEFENDERS 440 N. 4th St. Suite 390 St. Louis, MO 63102 314−361−8834 Email: mhanlon@archcitydefenders.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael−John Voss ARCHCITY DEFENDERS 440 N. 4th St. Suite 390 St. Louis, MO 63102 855−724−2489 x1002 Fax: 855−925−1307 Email: mjvoss@archcitydefenders.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nathaniel Richard Carroll KEANE LAW LLC 7777 Bonhomme Ave. Suite 1600

St. Louis, MO 63105 314−391−4700 Email: nathaniel@keanelawllc.com TERMINATED: 12/03/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel Zachary Fayne ARNOLD AND PORTER LLP − San Francisco Three Embarcadero Center Tenth Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 415−471−3114 Fax: 415−471−3400 Email: Zachary.Fayne@apks.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas B. Harvey ADVANCEMENT PROJECT 1220 L. Street NW Suite 850 Washington, DC 20005 314−482−3342 Fax: 314−925−1307 Email: tharvey@archcitydefenders.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Albert Teng ARNOLD AND PORTER LLP − DC 601 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20001 202−942−6778 Email: albert.teng@arnoldporter.com TERMINATED: 07/12/2019 PRO HAC VICE
David B. Bergman ARNOLD AND PORTER LLP − DC 601 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20001 202−942−5474 Email: david.bergman@apks.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacqueline Marie Kutnik−Bauder ARCHCITY DEFENDERS 440 N. 4th St. Suite 390 St. Louis, MO 63102 314−361−8834 x1024 Fax: 314−925−1307 Email: jkutnikbauder@archcitydefenders.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Robinson ARNOLD AND PORTER LLP − DC 601 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20001 202−942−5000 Email: john.robinson@arnoldporter.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Roelif Earl Carter

John McCann Waldron ARCHCITY DEFENDERS 440 N. 4th St. Suite 390 St. Louis, MO 63102 314−361−8834 x1021 Fax: 314−925−1307 Email: jwaldron@archcitydefenders.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth Jason Wiener ARNOLD AND PORTER LLP − DC 601 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20001 202−942−5691 Fax: 202−942−5999 Email: seth.wiener@apks.com TERMINATED: 09/30/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sima Atri ARCHCITY DEFENDERS 440 N. 4th St. Suite 390 St. Louis, MO 63102 314−461−8834 x2006 Fax: 314−925−1307 Email: satri@archcitydefenders.org TERMINATED: 02/05/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blake Alexander Strode (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward James Hall (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael−John Voss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathaniel Richard Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel Zachary Fayne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Bradley Jiles

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Albert Teng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/12/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Jacqueline Marie Kutnik−Bauder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Robinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John McCann Waldron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth Jason Wiener (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sima Atri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blake Alexander Strode (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward James Hall (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael−John Voss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathaniel Richard Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel Zachary Fayne

Plaintiff Angela Davis

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Albert Teng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/12/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Jacqueline Marie Kutnik−Bauder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Robinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John McCann Waldron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth Jason Wiener (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sima Atri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blake Alexander Strode (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward James Hall (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael−John Voss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathaniel Richard Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Meredith Walker

Samuel Zachary Fayne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Albert Teng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/12/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Jacqueline Marie Kutnik−Bauder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Robinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John McCann Waldron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth Jason Wiener (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sima Atri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blake Alexander Strode (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward James Hall (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael−John Voss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathaniel Richard Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2018

Plaintiff Brittany Ellis

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel Zachary Fayne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Albert Teng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/12/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Jacqueline Marie Kutnik−Bauder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Robinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John McCann Waldron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth Jason Wiener (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sima Atri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blake Alexander Strode (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward James Hall (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael−John Voss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathaniel Richard Carroll

Plaintiff Donya Pierce

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel Zachary Fayne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Albert Teng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/12/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Jacqueline Marie Kutnik−Bauder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Robinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John McCann Waldron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth Jason Wiener (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sima Atri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blake Alexander Strode (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward James Hall (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael−John Voss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ronald Tucker TERMINATED: 07/21/2017

Nathaniel Richard Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel Zachary Fayne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Albert Teng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/12/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Jacqueline Marie Kutnik−Bauder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Robinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John McCann Waldron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth Jason Wiener (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sima Atri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blake Alexander Strode (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward James Hall (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael−John Voss (See above for address)

Plaintiff
Keilee Fant TERMINATED: 07/21/2017

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathaniel Richard Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel Zachary Fayne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Robinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John McCann Waldron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth Jason Wiener (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sima Atri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blake Alexander Strode (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward James Hall (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael−John Voss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathaniel Richard Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Mawoussime Adoboe

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel Zachary Fayne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Robinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John McCann Waldron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth Jason Wiener (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sima Atri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blake Alexander Strode (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward James Hall (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael−John Voss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathaniel Richard Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel Zachary Fayne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Shilita Thomas TERMINATED: 07/21/2017

Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Albert Teng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/12/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Jacqueline Marie Kutnik−Bauder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Robinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John McCann Waldron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth Jason Wiener (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sima Atri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blake Alexander Strode (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward James Hall (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael−John Voss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathaniel Richard Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel Zachary Fayne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff
James Redmond, III TERMINATED: 07/21/2017

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Robinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John McCann Waldron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth Jason Wiener (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sima Atri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blake Alexander Strode (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward James Hall (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael−John Voss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathaniel Richard Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel Zachary Fayne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Veronica Murphy

John Robinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John McCann Waldron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth Jason Wiener (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sima Atri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blake Alexander Strode (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward James Hall (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael−John Voss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathaniel Richard Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel Zachary Fayne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Albert Teng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/12/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Jacqueline Marie Kutnik−Bauder (See above for address)

Plaintiff Charles Riley

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Robinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John McCann Waldron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth Jason Wiener (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sima Atri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Maureen Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathaniel Richard Carroll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel Zachary Fayne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Albert Teng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/12/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Jacqueline Marie Kutnik−Bauder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Robinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John McCann Waldron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth Jason Wiener (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sima Atri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2020

V. Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blake Daniel Hill HELLMICH HILL LLC 1049 N. Clay Ave. Kirkwood, MO 63122 314−646−1110 Fax: 314−646−1122 Email: Blake@hellmichhillretter.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Michael Reeves , Jr. REEVES LAW LLC 3703 Watson Road Saint Louis, MO 63109 314−775−6985 Fax: 314−775−6985 Email: reeves@reeveslawstl.com TERMINATED: 09/19/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John P. Torbitzky BEHR AND MCCARTER PC 7777 Bonhomme Avenue Suite 1400 St. Louis, MO 63105 314−862−3800 Fax: 314−862−3953 Email: jtorbitzky@bmplaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Dunne PITZER SNODGRASS PC 100 S. Fourth Street Suite 400 St. Louis, MO 63102−1821 314−421−5545 Fax: 314−421−3144 Email: dunne@pspclaw.com TERMINATED: 08/23/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Plunkert PITZER SNODGRASS PC 100 S. Fourth Street Suite 400 St. Louis, MO 63102−1821 314−335−1306 Fax: 314−421−5545 Email: plunkert@pspclaw.com TERMINATED: 08/23/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy J. Reichardt BEHR AND MCCARTER PC 7777 Bonhomme Avenue

Defendant Edmundson, City of TERMINATED: 04/24/2017
Defendant Normandy, City of TERMINATED: 04/24/2017
Defendant

Suite 1400 St. Louis, MO 63105 314−862−3800 Fax: 314−862−3953 Email: treichardt@bmplaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William A. Hellmich HELLMICH HILL LLC 1049 N. Clay Ave. Kirkwood, MO 63122 314−646−1110 Fax: 314−646−1122 Email: Bill@hellmichhillretter.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey J. Brinker BRINKER AND DOYEN LLP 34 N. Meramec Ave. Fifth Floor Clayton, MO 63105 314−863−6311 Fax: 314−863−8197 Email: jbrinker@brinkerdoyen.com TERMINATED: 11/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle V. Stallings HELLMICH HILL LLC 1049 N. Clay Ave. Kirkwood, MO 63122 314−646−1110 Fax: 314−646−1122 Email: michelle@hellmichhillretter.com TERMINATED: 11/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blake Daniel Hill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William A. Hellmich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blake Daniel Hill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William A. Hellmich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Cool Valley, City of TERMINATED: 04/24/2017
Defendant Velda City, City of TERMINATED: 04/24/2017
Defendant Beverly Hills, Missouri, City of TERMINATED: 04/24/2017
Defendant Pagedale, City of TERMINATED: 04/24/2017
Defendant Calverton Park, City of TERMINATED: 04/24/2017

Blake Daniel Hill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William A. Hellmich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blake Daniel Hill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William A. Hellmich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blake Daniel Hill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William A. Hellmich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blake Daniel Hill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert J. Krehbiel HELLMICH HILL LLC 1049 N. Clay Ave. Kirkwood, MO 63122 314−646−1110 Fax: 314−646−1122 Email: Bob@hellmichhillretter.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William A. Hellmich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by D. Keith Henson PAULE AND CAMAZINE PC 165 N. Meramec Ave. Suite 110 Clayton, MO 63105 314−727−2266 Fax: 314−727−2101 Email: khenson@pcblawfirm.com

Defendant St. John, City of TERMINATED: 04/24/2017
Defendant Bel−Ridge, City of TERMINATED: 04/24/2017
Defendant Wellston, City of TERMINATED: 04/24/2017
Defendant Velda Village Hills, City of TERMINATED: 04/24/2017

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J. Dunne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Plunkert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blake Daniel Hill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William A. Hellmich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Blake Daniel Hill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William A. Hellmich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Casey O. Housley SANDERS AND WARREN LLP − Overland Park 40 Corporate Woods, Suite 1250 9401 Indian Creek Parkway Overland Park, KS 66210 913−234−6100 Fax: 913−234−6199 Email: c.housley@swrsllp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis O. Roggow SANDERS AND WARREN LLP − Overland Park 40 Corporate Woods, Suite 1250 9401 Indian Creek Parkway Overland Park, KS 66210 913−234−6100 Fax: 913−234−6199 Email: c.roggow@swrsllp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Bellefontaine Neighbors, City of TERMINATED: 04/24/2017
Movant Peter J. Dunne
Movant Robert T. Plunkert

represented by Blake Daniel Hill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert J. Krehbiel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Maurice B. Graham GRAY AND RITTER PC 701 Market Street Suite 800 St. Louis, MO 63101−1826 314−241−5620 Fax: 314−241−4140 Email: mgraham@grgpc.com TERMINATED: 09/23/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Maurice B. Graham (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/23/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/09/2016
08/09/2016 08/09/2016 08/10/2016 08/10/2016

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against defendant All Defendants Jury Demand,, filed by Shilita Thomas, Donya Pierce, Roelif Earl Carter, Quinton M Thomas, Veronica Murphy, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Keilee Fant, James Redmond, III, Ronald Tucker, Angela Davis, Mawoussime Adoboe, Meredith Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Original Filing Form, # 3 Waiver of Service for Bel−Ridge, # 4 Waiver of Service for Bellefontaine Neighbors, # 5 Waiver of Service for Beverly Hills, # 6 Waiver of Service for Calverton Park, # 7 Waiver of Service for Cool Valley, # 8 Waiver of Service for Edmundson, # 9 Waiver of Service for Normandy, # 10 Waiver of Service for Pagedale, # 11 Waiver of Service for St. Ann, # 12 Waiver of Service for St. John, # 13 Waiver of Service for Velda City, # 14 Waiver of Service for Velda Village Hills, # 15 Waiver of Service for Wellston)(Harvey, Thomas) (Entered: 08/09/2016)
2 ENTRY of Appearance by Nathaniel Richard Carroll for Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Quinton M Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Carroll, Nathaniel) (Entered: 08/09/2016)
3 ENTRY of Appearance by Blake Alexander Strode for Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Quinton M Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Strode, Blake) (Entered: 08/09/2016)
Case Opening Notification: Waivers issued 13. All parties must file the Notice Regarding Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Form (moed−0041.pdf) consenting to or opting out of the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Judge Assigned: Honorable David D. Noce. (MFG) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
4 ENTRY of Appearance by Edward James Hall for Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker,

08/10/2016 08/11/2016 08/12/2016 10/07/2016 10/07/2016 10/07/2016 10/07/2016 10/07/2016 10/07/2016 10/07/2016 10/07/2016 10/07/2016

Meredith Walker. (Hall, Edward) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
5 Pursuant to Local Rule 2.08, the assigned/referred magistrate judge is designated and authorized by the court to exercise full authority in this assigned/referred action or matter under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 3401. (CSAW) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
6 ENTRY of Appearance by Michael−John Voss for Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Voss, Michael−John) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
7 CJRA ORDER (GJL). Magistrate Judge David D. Noce termed. Case reassigned to District Judge Rodney W. Sippel for all further proceedings. (KKS) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
8 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Shilita Thomas, Donya Pierce, Roelif Earl Carter, Quinton M. Thomas, Veronica Murphy, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Keilee Fant, James Redmond, III, Ronald Tucker, Angela Davis, Mawoussime Adoboe, Meredith Walker Calverton Park, City of waiver signed on 9/16/2016, answer due 11/15/2016. (Hall, Edward) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
9 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Shilita Thomas, Donya Pierce, Roelif Earl Carter, Quinton M. Thomas, Veronica Murphy, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Keilee Fant, James Redmond, III, Ronald Tucker, Angela Davis, Mawoussime Adoboe, Meredith Walker Cool Valley, City of waiver signed on 8/26/2016, answer due 10/25/2016. (Hall, Edward) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Shilita Thomas, Roelif Earl Carter, Quinton M. Thomas, Veronica Murphy, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Keilee Fant, James Redmond, III, Ronald Tucker, Angela Davis, Mawoussime Adoboe, Meredith Walker Edmundson, City of waiver signed on 8/26/2016, answer due 10/25/2016. (Hall, Edward) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
11 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Shilita Thomas, Donya Pierce, Roelif Earl Carter, Quinton M. Thomas, Veronica Murphy, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Keilee Fant, James Redmond, III, Ronald Tucker, Angela Davis, Mawoussime Adoboe, Meredith Walker Normandy, City of waiver signed on 8/26/2016, answer due 10/25/2016. (Hall, Edward) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
12 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Shilita Thomas, Donya Pierce, Roelif Earl Carter, Quinton M. Thomas, Veronica Murphy, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Keilee Fant, James Redmond, III, Ronald Tucker, Angela Davis, Mawoussime Adoboe, Meredith Walker Pagedale, City of waiver signed on 9/12/2016, answer due 11/14/2016. (Hall, Edward) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
13 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Shilita Thomas, Donya Pierce, Roelif Earl Carter, Quinton M. Thomas, Veronica Murphy, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Keilee Fant, James Redmond, III, Ronald Tucker, Angela Davis, Mawoussime Adoboe, Meredith Walker St. Ann, Missouri, City of waiver signed on 9/6/2016, answer due 11/7/2016. (Hall, Edward) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
14 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Shilita Thomas, Donya Pierce, Roelif Earl Carter, Quinton M. Thomas, Veronica Murphy, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Keilee Fant, James Redmond, III, Ronald Tucker, Angela Davis, Mawoussime Adoboe, Meredith Walker St. John, City of waiver signed on 9/1/2016, answer due 10/31/2016. (Hall, Edward) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
15 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Shilita Thomas, Donya Pierce, Roelif Earl Carter, Quinton M. Thomas, Veronica Murphy, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Keilee Fant, James Redmond, III, Ronald Tucker, Angela Davis, Mawoussime Adoboe, Meredith Walker Velda City, City of waiver signed on 8/26/2016, answer due 10/25/2016. (Hall, Edward) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
16 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Shilita Thomas, Donya Pierce, Roelif Earl Carter, Quinton M. Thomas, Veronica Murphy, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Keilee Fant, James Redmond, III, Ronald Tucker, Angela Davis, Mawoussime Adoboe, Meredith Walker Bellefontaine Neighbors, City of waiver signed on 9/23/2016, answer due 11/22/2016. (Hall, Edward) (Entered: 10/07/2016)

10/07/2016 10/07/2016
10/07/2016 10/07/2016 10/07/2016 10/07/2016 10/07/2016 10/07/2016 10/07/2016 10/18/2016 10/18/2016 10/26/2016 10/26/2016 10/26/2016 10/26/2016

17 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Shilita Thomas, Donya Pierce, Roelif Earl Carter, Quinton M. Thomas, Veronica Murphy, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Keilee Fant, James Redmond, III, Ronald Tucker, Angela Davis, Mawoussime Adoboe, Meredith Walker (Hall, Edward) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
18 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Shilita Thomas, Donya Pierce, Roelif Earl Carter, Quinton M. Thomas, Veronica Murphy, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Keilee Fant, James Redmond, III, Ronald Tucker, Angela Davis, Mawoussime Adoboe, Meredith Walker Bel−Ridge, City of waiver signed on 8/26/2016, answer due 10/25/2016. (Hall, Edward) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
19 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Shilita Thomas, Donya Pierce, Roelif Earl Carter, Quinton M. Thomas, Veronica Murphy, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Keilee Fant, James Redmond, III, Ronald Tucker, Angela Davis, Mawoussime Adoboe, Meredith Walker (Hall, Edward) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
20 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Shilita Thomas, Donya Pierce, Roelif Earl Carter, Quinton M. Thomas, Veronica Murphy, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Keilee Fant, James Redmond, III, Ronald Tucker, Angela Davis, Mawoussime Adoboe, Meredith Walker (Hall, Edward) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
21 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Shilita Thomas, Donya Pierce, Roelif Earl Carter, Quinton M. Thomas, Veronica Murphy, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Keilee Fant, James Redmond, III, Ronald Tucker, Angela Davis, Mawoussime Adoboe, Meredith Walker (Hall, Edward) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
22 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Shilita Thomas, Donya Pierce, Roelif Earl Carter, Quinton M. Thomas, Veronica Murphy, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Keilee Fant, James Redmond, III, Ronald Tucker, Angela Davis, Mawoussime Adoboe, Meredith Walker (Hall, Edward) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
23 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Shilita Thomas, Donya Pierce, Roelif Earl Carter, Quinton M. Thomas, Veronica Murphy, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Keilee Fant, James Redmond, III, Ronald Tucker, Angela Davis, Mawoussime Adoboe, Meredith Walker (Hall, Edward) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
24 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Shilita Thomas, Donya Pierce, Roelif Earl Carter, Quinton M. Thomas, Veronica Murphy, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Keilee Fant, James Redmond, III, Ronald Tucker, Angela Davis, Mawoussime Adoboe, Meredith Walker (Hall, Edward) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
25 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Shilita Thomas, Donya Pierce, Roelif Earl Carter, Quinton M. Thomas, Veronica Murphy, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Keilee Fant, James Redmond, III, Ronald Tucker, Angela Davis, Mawoussime Adoboe, Meredith Walker (Hall, Edward) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
26 ENTRY of Appearance by Blake Daniel Hill for Defendants Bel−Ridge, City of, Bellefontaine Neighbors, City of, Cool Valley, City of, Edmundson, City of, Normandy, City of, Pagedale, City of, Velda City, City of. (Hill, Blake) (Entered: 10/18/2016)
27 ENTRY of Appearance by Blake Daniel Hill for Defendant Beverly Hills, Missouri, City of. (Hill, Blake) (Entered: 10/18/2016)
28 ENTRY of Appearance by Blake Daniel Hill for Defendant Wellston, City of. (Hill, Blake) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
29 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,,, to November 11, 2016 by Defendants Bel−Ridge, City of, Beverly Hills, Missouri, City of, Cool Valley, City of, Edmundson, City of, Normandy, City of, Pagedale, City of, Velda City, City of, Wellston, City of. (Hill, Blake) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
30 ENTRY of Appearance by William A. Hellmich for Defendants Bel−Ridge, City of, Beverly Hills, Missouri, City of, Cool Valley, City of, Edmundson, City of, Normandy, City of, Pagedale, City of, Velda City, City of, Wellston, City of. (Hellmich, William) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
31 ENTRY of Appearance by Peter J. Dunne for Defendants St. Ann, Missouri, City of, St. John, City of. (Dunne, Peter) (Entered: 10/26/2016)

10/26/2016 10/26/2016 10/26/2016 10/26/2016 10/27/2016 10/27/2016
10/28/2016 10/28/2016 10/31/2016
11/01/2016 11/01/2016 11/02/2016 11/03/2016

32 MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation by Defendants St. Ann, Missouri, City of, St. John, City of. (Dunne, Peter) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
33 ENTRY of Appearance by Robert T. Plunkert for Defendants St. Ann, Missouri, City of, St. John, City of. (Plunkert, Robert) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
34 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Case by Defendants St. Ann, Missouri, City of, St. John, City of. (Dunne, Peter) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
35 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 34 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendants St. Ann, Missouri, City of, St. John, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Dunne, Peter) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
36 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 32 MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation by Defendants St. Ann, Missouri, City of, St. John, City of. (Dunne, Peter) filed by St. Ann, Missouri, City of, St. John, City of ; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 10/27/16. (ARL) (Entered: 10/27/2016)
37 Docket Text ORDER: as to Bel−Ridge, City of, Beverly Hills, Missouri, City of, Cool Valley, City of, Edmundson, City of, Normandy, City of, Pagedale, City of, Velda City, City of, Wellston, City of Re: 29 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,,, to November 11, 2016 by Defendants Bel−Ridge, City of, Beverly Hills, Missouri, City of, Cool Valley, City of, Edmundson, City of, Normandy, City of, Pagedale, City of, Velda City, City of, Wellston, City of. (Hill, Blake) filed by Cool Valley, City of, Beverly Hills, Missouri, City of, Edmundson, City of, Wellston, City of, Pagedale, City of, Bel−Ridge, City of, Velda City, City of, Normandy, City of ; ORDERED GRANTED, Bel−Ridge, City of answer due 11/11/2016; Beverly Hills, Missouri, City of answer due 11/11/2016; Cool Valley, City of answer due 11/11/2016; Edmundson, City of answer due 11/11/2016; Normandy, City of answer due 11/11/2016; Pagedale, City of answer due 11/11/2016; Velda City, City of answer due 11/11/2016; Wellston, City of answer due 11/11/2016. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 10/27/16. (ARL) (Entered: 10/27/2016)
38 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by Defendant Velda Village Hills, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Housley, Casey) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
39 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Curtis O. Roggow. The Certificate of Good Standing was attached.(Filing fee $100 receipt number 0865−5653517) by Defendant Velda Village Hills, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing KS, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing MO)(Roggow, Curtis) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
40 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 39 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Curtis O. Roggow. The Certificate of Good Standing was attached.(Filing fee $100 receipt number 0865−5653517) by Defendant Velda Village Hills, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing KS, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing MO)(Roggow, Curtis) filed by Velda Village Hills, City of ; ORDERED GRANTED.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 10/31/16. (LGK) (Entered: 10/31/2016)
41 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Shilita Thomas, Donya Pierce, Roelif Earl Carter, Quinton M. Thomas, Veronica Murphy, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Keilee Fant, James Redmond, III, Ronald Tucker, Angela Davis, Mawoussime Adoboe, Meredith Walker Velda Village Hills, City of waiver signed on 9/30/2016, answer due 11/29/2016. (Hall, Edward) (Entered: 11/01/2016)
42 STIPULATION and Proposed Order Regarding Briefing Schedule by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Strode, Blake) (Entered: 11/01/2016)
43 ENTRY of Appearance by Robert J. Krehbiel for Defendants Bellefontaine Neighbors, City of, Pagedale, City of. (Krehbiel, Robert) (Entered: 11/02/2016)
44 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Case (Joining in Motions of St. Ann and St. John [Doc. Nos. 34, 35]) by Defendants Bel−Ridge, City of, Bellefontaine Neighbors, City of, Beverly Hills, Missouri, City of, Cool Valley, City of, Edmundson, City of, Normandy, City of, Pagedale, City of, Velda City, City of, Wellston, City of. (Hill, Blake) (Entered: 11/03/2016)

11/04/2016
11/09/2016 11/15/2016 11/15/2016 11/15/2016 11/30/2016
12/02/2016
12/09/2016 12/12/2016 12/14/2016 12/14/2016 12/14/2016
12/14/2016

45 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant City of Velda Village Hills' consent motion for an extension of time, up to and including November 11, 2016, to file a response to the complaint 38 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties' stipulated agreement regarding a briefing schedule for Defendants' motions to dismiss is adopted. Defendants shall file their responses to the complaint no later than November 11, 2016. Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to any motions to dismiss no later than December 14, 2016. Defendants' reply briefs shall be filed no later than January 13, 2017. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 11/4/16. (CAR) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
46 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Defendant Velda Village Hills, City of. (Housley, Casey) (Entered: 11/09/2016)
47 ENTRY of Appearance by D. Keith Henson for Defendant Calverton Park, City of. (Henson, D.) (Entered: 11/15/2016)
48 MOTION to Dismiss Party City of Calverton Park by Defendant Calverton Park, City of. (Henson, D.) (Entered: 11/15/2016)
49 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 48 MOTION to Dismiss Party City of Calverton Park filed by Defendant Calverton Park, City of. (Henson, D.) (Entered: 11/15/2016)
50 AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant All Defendants Amendment to 1 Complaint,,, , filed by Shilita Thomas, Donya Pierce, Roelif Earl Carter, Quinton M. Thomas, Veronica Murphy, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Keilee Fant, James Redmond, III, Ronald Tucker, Angela Davis, Mawoussime Adoboe, Meredith Walker. Related document: 1 Complaint,,, filed by Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Meredith Walker, Bradley Jiles, Ronald Tucker, Brittany Ellis, James Redmond, III, Donya Pierce, Keilee Fant, Shilita Thomas, Quinton M. Thomas, Mawoussime Adoboe, Veronica Murphy.(Hall, Edward) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
51 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants City of St. Ann and City of St. John's 34 ; City of Bellefontaine Neighbors, City of Velda City, City of Beverly Hills, City of Wellston, and City of Pagedale 44 ; City of Velda Village Hills 46 ; and City of Calverton Park 48 are DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if motions to dismiss are filed in response to the amended complaint, the parties must provide courtesy copies to my chambers of all documents filed in support of or in opposition to the motions. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 12/2/16. (CAR) (Entered: 12/02/2016)
52 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any party filing papers in excess of 15 pages in support or in opposition of a dispositive motion shall provide a paper courtesy copy to my chambers. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 12/9/16. (CAR) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
53 STIPULATION by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Strode, Blake) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
54 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Defendants St. Ann, Missouri, City of, St. John, City of. (Dunne, Peter) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
55 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 54 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendants St. Ann, Missouri, City of, St. John, City of. (Dunne, Peter) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
56 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' stipulated agreementregarding a briefing schedule for Defendants' motions to dismiss is adopted. Defendants shall file any motions to dismiss the amended complaint no later than December 14, 2016. Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to any motions to dismiss no later than December 20, 2016. Defendants' reply briefs shall be filed no later than January 19, 2017. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 12/14/16. (CAR) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
57 MOTION to Dismiss :Count VI and Joinder in the Motion to Dismiss Filed by Defendants City of St. Ann and City of St. John by Defendant Calverton Park, City of. (Henson, D.) (Entered: 12/14/2016)

12/14/2016 12/14/2016 12/14/2016 12/20/2016 12/20/2016
12/22/2016 01/03/2017
01/04/2017 01/19/2017 01/19/2017 01/19/2017 01/19/2017 01/19/2017

58 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 57 MOTION to Dismiss :Count VI and Joinder in the Motion to Dismiss Filed by Defendants City of St. Ann and City of St. John filed by Defendant Calverton Park, City of. (Henson, D.) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
59 MOTION to Dismiss Case (Motion to Dismiss First Amended Class Action Complaint) by Defendant Velda Village Hills, City of. (Housley, Casey) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
60 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Case (Joining in Motions of St. Ann and St. John [Doc. Nos. 54, 55]) by Defendants Bel−Ridge, City of, Bellefontaine Neighbors, City of, Beverly Hills, Missouri, City of, Cool Valley, City of, Edmundson, City of, Normandy, City of, Pagedale, City of, Velda City, City of, Wellston, City of. (Hill, Blake) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
61 MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Strode, Blake) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
62 RESPONSE in Opposition re 57 MOTION to Dismiss :Count VI and Joinder in the Motion to Dismiss Filed by Defendants City of St. Ann and City of St. John, 54 MOTION to Dismiss Case , 60 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Case (Joining in Motions of St. Ann and St. John [Doc. Nos. 54, 55]), 59 MOTION to Dismiss Case (Motion to Dismiss First Amended Class Action Complaint) filed by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Strode, Blake) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
63 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 61 MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation, filed by Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Meredith Walker, Bradley Jiles, Ronald Tucker, Brittany Ellis, James Redmond, III, Donya Pierce, Keilee Fant, Shilita Thomas, Quinton M. Thomas, Mawoussime Adoboe, Veronica Murphy; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 12/22/16. (CAR) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
64 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice S. Zachary Fayne. The Certificate of Good Standing was attached.(Filing fee $100 receipt number 0865−5745331) by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Fayne, Samuel) (Entered: 01/03/2017)
65 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 64 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of S. Zachary Fayne, filed by Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Meredith Walker, Bradley Jiles, Ronald Tucker, Brittany Ellis, James Redmond, III, Donya Pierce, Keilee Fant, Shilita Thomas, Quinton M. Thomas, Mawoussime Adoboe, Veronica Murphy; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 1/4/17. (CAR) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
66 MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation by Defendants St. Ann, Missouri, City of, St. John, City of. (Dunne, Peter) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
67 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 54 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendants St. Ann, Missouri, City of, St. John, City of. (Dunne, Peter) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
68 REPLY to Response to Motion re 59 MOTION to Dismiss Case (Motion to Dismiss First Amended Class Action Complaint) filed by Defendant Velda Village Hills, City of. (Housley, Casey) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
69 REPLY to Response to Motion re 57 MOTION to Dismiss :Count VI and Joinder in the Motion to Dismiss Filed by Defendants City of St. Ann and City of St. John filed by Defendant Calverton Park, City of. (Henson, D.) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
70 REPLY to Response to Motion re 54 MOTION to Dismiss Case , 60 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Case (Joining in Motions of St. Ann and St. John [Doc. Nos. 54, 55]) (JOINDER IN REPLY) filed by Defendants Bel−Ridge, City of, Bellefontaine Neighbors, City of, Beverly Hills, Missouri, City of, Cool Valley, City of, Edmundson, City of, Normandy, City of, Pagedale, City of, Velda City, City of, Wellston, City of. (Hill, Blake) (Entered: 01/19/2017)

01/20/2017 02/27/2017 02/28/2017
03/07/2017 03/08/2017 04/11/2017 04/12/2017
04/24/2017
05/08/2017 05/08/2017

71 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 66 MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation filed by St. Ann, Missouri, City of, St. John, City of; GRANTED − SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 1/20/17. (KJS) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
72 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Seth Jason Wiener. The Certificate of Good Standing was attached.(Filing fee $100 receipt number 0865−5830535) by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing Certificate of Good Standing)(Wiener, Seth) (Entered: 02/27/2017)
73 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 72 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Seth Jason Wiener. The Certificate of Good Standing was attached.(Filing fee $100 receipt number 0865−5830535) by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing Certificate of Good Standing)(Wiener, Seth) filed by Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Meredith Walker, Bradley Jiles, Ronald Tucker, Brittany Ellis, James Redmond, III, Donya Pierce, Keilee Fant, Shilita Thomas, Quinton M. Thomas, Mawoussime Adoboe, Veronica Murphy ; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 2/28/17. (ARL) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
74 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice David Bergman. The Certificate of Good Standing was attached.(Filing fee $100 receipt number 0865−5846966) by Plaintiff Quinton M. Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Bergman, David) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
75 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 74 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice David Bergman. The Certificate of Good Standing was attached.(Filing fee $100 receipt number 0865−5846966) by Plaintiff Quinton M. Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Bergman, David) filed by Quinton M. Thomas ; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 3/8/17. (ARL) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
76 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney ;attorney/firm Edward Hall by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Hall, Edward) (Entered: 04/11/2017)
77 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 76 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney ;attorney/firm Edward Hall by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Hall, Edward) filed by Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Meredith Walker, Bradley Jiles, Ronald Tucker, Brittany Ellis, James Redmond, III, Donya Pierce, Keilee Fant, Shilita Thomas, Quinton M. Thomas, Mawoussime Adoboe, Veronica Murphy ; ORDERED GRANTED. Attorney Edward James Hall terminated. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 4/12/17. (ARL) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
78 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffsconspiracy claim 54 , 57 , 59 , and 60 are GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants City of Edmunson, City of Normandy, City of Cool Valley, City of Velda City, City of Beverly Hills, City of Pagedale, City of Calverton Park, City of St. John, City of Bel−Ridge, City of Wellston, City of Velda Village Hills, and City of Bellefontaine Neighbors are DISMISSED without prejudice as being improperly joined in this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint directed solely at Defendant City of St. Ann no later than May 26, 2017. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 4/24/17. (CAR) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
79 NOTICE of Change of Address filed by Samuel Zachary Fayne. The email address has been updated. (Fayne, Samuel) Modified on 5/9/2017 (LMR). (Entered: 05/08/2017)
80 MOTION for Reconsideration re 78 Order, Add and Terminate Parties,,,, by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Fayne, Samuel) (Entered: 05/08/2017)

05/12/2017
05/15/2017
05/24/2017 05/24/2017 06/01/2017 06/07/2017 06/19/2017
06/26/2017 06/26/2017 06/30/2017 06/30/2017 06/30/2017

81 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 80 MOTION for Reconsideration re 78 Order, Add and Terminate Parties,,,, by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Fayne, Samuel) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
82 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 81 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 80 MOTION for Reconsideration re 78 Order, filed by Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Meredith Walker, Bradley Jiles, Ronald Tucker, Brittany Ellis, James Redmond, III, Donya Pierce, Keilee Fant, Shilita Thomas, Quinton M. Thomas, Mawoussime Adoboe, Veronica Murphy; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 5/15/17. (CAR) (Entered: 05/15/2017)
83 RESPONSE to Motion re 80 MOTION for Reconsideration re 78 Order, Add and Terminate Parties,,,, filed by Defendants Bel−Ridge, City of, Bellefontaine Neighbors, City of, Beverly Hills, Missouri, City of, Calverton Park, City of, Cool Valley, City of, Edmundson, City of, Normandy, City of, Pagedale, City of, St. Ann, Missouri, City of, St. John, City of, Velda City, City of, Wellston, City of. (Dunne, Peter) (Entered: 05/24/2017)
84 RESPONSE in Opposition re 80 MOTION for Reconsideration re 78 Order, Add and Terminate Parties,,,, filed by Defendant Velda Village Hills, City of. (Housley, Casey) (Entered: 05/24/2017)
85 NOTICE Firm Name Change: by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of Defendant, CITY OF VELDA VILLAGE HILLS (Housley, Casey) (Entered: 06/01/2017)
86 REPLY to Response to Motion re 80 MOTION for Reconsideration re 78 Order, Add and Terminate Parties,,,, filed by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Wiener, Seth) (Entered: 06/07/2017)
87 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Pitzer Snodgrass by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Thomas B. Harvey, # 2 Exhibit April 25 email, # 3 Exhibit May 2 email, # 4 Exhibit May 4 email)(Strode, Blake) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
88 ENTRY of Appearance by Maurice B. Graham for Movants Peter J. Dunne, Robert T. Plunkert. (Graham, Maurice) (Entered: 06/26/2017)
89 RESPONSE to Motion re 87 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Pitzer Snodgrass and Memorandum in Support filed by Movants Peter J. Dunne, Robert T. Plunkert. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − affidavit of Peter Dunne, # 2 Exhibit B − affidavit of Michelle Joiner, # 3 Exhibit C − affidavit of Ryan McGinty)(Graham, Maurice) (Entered: 06/26/2017)
90 Consent MOTION for Extension of: Time to File Reply in Support of Motion to Disqualify by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Strode, Blake) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
91 Amended MOTION for Extension of: Time to File Reply in Support of Motion to Disqualify by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Strode, Blake) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
92 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 90 Consent MOTION for Extension of: Time to File Reply in Support of Motion to Disqualify by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Strode, Blake) filed by Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Meredith Walker, Bradley Jiles, Ronald Tucker, Brittany Ellis, James Redmond, III, Donya Pierce, Keilee Fant, Shilita Thomas, Quinton M. Thomas, Mawoussime Adoboe, Veronica Murphy ;

ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 6/30/17. (ARL) (Entered: 06/30/2017)

06/30/2017 93 ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the dismissal of their conspiracy claim 80 is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 6/30/17. (LGK) (Entered: 06/30/2017)

07/05/2017

94 AMENDED ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims against all other Defendants aside from the City of St. Ann, Missouri 80 is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 7/5/17. (CAR) (Entered: 07/05/2017)

07/10/2017

95 REPLY to Response to Motion re 87 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Pitzer Snodgrass filed by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Carroll, Nathaniel) (Entered: 07/10/2017)

07/21/2017

96 AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of,Terminating Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Keilee Fant and James Redmond, III Amendment to 50 Amended Complaint,, Jury demand, , filed by Donya Pierce, Roelif Earl Carter, Quinton M. Thomas, Veronica Murphy, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Angela Davis, Mawoussime Adoboe, Meredith Walker, Charles Riley. Related document: 50 Amended Complaint,, filed by Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Meredith Walker, Bradley Jiles, Ronald Tucker, Brittany Ellis, James Redmond, III, Donya Pierce, Keilee Fant, Shilita Thomas, Quinton M. Thomas, Mawoussime Adoboe, Veronica Murphy.(Fayne, Samuel) (Entered: 07/21/2017)

08/04/2017 97 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 96 Amended Complaint,, by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Plunkert, Robert) (Entered: 08/04/2017)

08/09/2017 98 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney ;attorney/firm Peter J. Dunne, Robert T. Plunkert/Pitzer Snodgrass by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Dunne, Peter) (Entered: 08/09/2017)

08/10/2017

99 ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a hearing of Plaintiffs motion to disqualify Defendant's counsel and Defendants counsel's motion to withdraw is set on August 23, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 16 South. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 8/10/17. (ARL) (Entered: 08/10/2017)

08/21/2017 100 ENTRY of Appearance by John Michael Reeves, Jr for Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) Document deleted on 8/22/2017 due to wrong pdf attached. Correct document filed at Doc. 101 (CAR). (Entered: 08/21/2017)

08/21/2017 101 ENTRY of Appearance by John Michael Reeves, Jr for Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) (Entered: 08/21/2017)

08/22/2017 102 ENTRY of Appearance by Jeffrey J. Brinker for Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Brinker, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/22/2017)

08/23/2017 103 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Rodney W. Sippel: Motion Hearing held on 8/23/2017 re 98 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by St. Ann, Missouri, City of, and 87 MOTION to Disqualify Pitzer Snodgrass filed by Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Meredith Walker, Bradley Jiles, Ronald Tucker, Brittany Ellis, James Redmond, III, Donya Pierce, Keilee Fant, Shilita Thomas, Quinton M. Thomas, Mawoussime Adoboe, Veronica Murphy. Order to follow. (Court Reporter:Shannon White) (FTR Gold: No) (CAR) (Entered: 08/23/2017)

08/23/2017 104 ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant City of St. Ann's counsel Peter J. Dunne, Robert T. Plunkert, and Pitzer Snodgrass, P.C.'s motion to withdraw 98 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to disqualify those attorneys and law firm 87 is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's consent motion for an extension of time to file a response to Plaintiff's second amended complaint 97 is GRANTED. Response due by 9/8/17. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 8/23/17. (LGK) (Entered: 08/23/2017)

09/08/2017 105 MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation memorandum in support of motion to dismiss Counts I through V for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
09/08/2017 106 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Counts I through V of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
09/08/2017 107 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 106 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Counts I through V of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
09/08/2017 108 MOTION to Dismiss :Count VI of Plaintiffs' second amended class action complaint by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
09/08/2017 109 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 108 MOTION to Dismiss :Count VI of Plaintiffs' second amended class action complaint filed by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
09/12/2017 110 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 105 MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation memorandum in support of motion to dismiss Counts I through V for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, filed by St. Ann, Missouri, City of; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 9/12/2017. (CAR) (Entered: 09/12/2017)
09/12/2017 111 STIPULATION re 106 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Counts I through V of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint, 108 MOTION to Dismiss :Count VI of Plaintiffs' second amended class action complaint re Briefing Schedule by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Meredith Walker. (Fayne, Samuel) (Entered: 09/12/2017)
09/13/2017 112 ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Plaintiffs' response to Defendant's motions to dismiss shall be filed no later than October 9, 2017. Defendant's reply brief shall be filed no later than October 24, 2017. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 9/13/2017. (CBL) (Entered: 09/13/2017)
10/09/2017 113 MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Meredith Walker. (Fayne, Samuel) (Entered: 10/09/2017)
10/09/2017 114 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 106 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Counts I through V of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Meredith Walker. (Fayne, Samuel) (Entered: 10/09/2017)
10/09/2017 115 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 108 MOTION to Dismiss :Count VI of Plaintiffs' second amended class action complaint filed by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Meredith Walker. (Fayne, Samuel) (Entered: 10/09/2017)
10/10/2017 116 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 113 MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Meredith Walker ; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 10/10/17. (KXS) (Entered: 10/10/2017)
10/17/2017 117 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 106 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Counts I through V of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint, 108 MOTION to Dismiss :Count VI of Plaintiffs' second amended class action complaint by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) (Entered: 10/17/2017)
10/18/2017 118 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 117 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 106 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Counts I through V of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint, 108 MOTION to Dismiss :Count VI of Plaintiffs' second amended class action complaint by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City

of. (Reeves, John) filed by St. Ann, Missouri, City of ; ORDERED GRANTED.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 10/18/17. (LGK) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
10/19/2017 119 ENTRY of Appearance by Michelle V. Stallings for Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Stallings, Michelle) (Entered: 10/19/2017)
10/31/2017 120 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in support of motions to dismiss by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) (Entered: 10/31/2017)
11/01/2017 121 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 120 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in support of motions to dismiss by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) filed by St. Ann, Missouri, City of ; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 11/1/17. (ARL) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
11/06/2017 122 ENTRY of Appearance by Sima Atri for Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Atri, Sima) (Entered: 11/06/2017)
11/07/2017 123 MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation on Reply Memorandum by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) (Entered: 11/07/2017)
11/07/2017 124 REPLY to Response to Motion re 106 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Counts I through V of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) (Entered: 11/07/2017)
11/07/2017 125 REPLY to Response to Motion re 108 MOTION to Dismiss :Count VI of Plaintiffs' second amended class action complaint filed by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) (Entered: 11/07/2017)
11/08/2017 126 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 123 MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation on Reply Memorandum by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) filed by St. Ann, Missouri, City of ; ORDERED GRANTED.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 11/8/17. (LGK) (Entered: 11/08/2017)
12/18/2017 127 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority re 106 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Counts I through V of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint, 108 MOTION to Dismiss :Count VI of Plaintiffs' second amended class action complaint by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Meredith Walker . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Fayne, Samuel) (Entered: 12/18/2017)
12/21/2017 128 RESPONSE re 127 Notice of Supplemental Authority,, filed by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
02/05/2018 129 ENTRY of Appearance by John McCann Waldron for Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Waldron, John) (Entered: 02/05/2018)
02/26/2018 130 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a status conference is set in this matter on March 8, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 16 South. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 2/26/2018. (CAR) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
03/01/2018 131 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Meredith Walker. (Wiener, Seth) (Entered: 03/01/2018)
03/02/2018 132 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 131 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically filed by Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Meredith Walker, Bradley Jiles, Brittany Ellis, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Mawoussime Adoboe, Veronica Murphy; ORDERED GRANTED. Plaintiff's counsel shall call in to chambers at 314−244−7430 to be connected to the conference. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 3/2/2018. (CAR) (Entered: 03/02/2018)
03/05/2018 133 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice John Robinson. The Certificate of Good Standing was attached.(Filing fee $100 receipt number 0865−6412776) by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant,

Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Robinson, John) (Entered: 03/05/2018)
03/06/2018 134 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 133 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice John Robinson. The Certificate of Good Standing was attached.(Filing fee $100 receipt number 0865−6412776) by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Robinson, John) filed by Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Meredith Walker, Bradley Jiles, Ronald Tucker, Brittany Ellis, James Redmond, III, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Keilee Fant, Shilita Thomas, Quinton M. Thomas, Mawoussime Adoboe, Veronica Murphy ; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 3/6/18. (ARL) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
03/08/2018 135 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a status conference is set in this matter on March 29, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 16 South. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 3/8/2018. (CAR) (Entered: 03/08/2018)
03/08/2018 136 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Rodney W. Sippel: Status Conference held on 3/8/2018. Discussion held. Next status conference set for 3/29/18 @ 3:00 p.m. (Court Reporter: Shannon White, Shannon_White@moed.uscourts.gov, 314−244−7966) (FTR Gold: No) (ARL) (Entered: 03/08/2018)
03/16/2018 137 First MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Albert Teng. The Certificate of Good Standing was attached.(Filing fee $100 receipt number 0865−6435466) by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Meredith Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing DC Bar Certificate of Good Standing)(Teng, Albert) (Entered: 03/16/2018)
03/19/2018 138 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 137 First MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Albert Teng, filed by Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Meredith Walker, Bradley Jiles, Brittany Ellis, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Mawoussime Adoboe, Veronica Murphy; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 3/19/2018. (CAR) (Entered: 03/19/2018)
03/26/2018 139 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Robinson, John) (Entered: 03/26/2018)
03/26/2018 140 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 139 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Robinson, John) filed by Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Meredith Walker, Bradley Jiles, Ronald Tucker, Brittany Ellis, James Redmond, III, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Keilee Fant, Shilita Thomas, Quinton M. Thomas, Mawoussime Adoboe, Veronica Murphy ; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 3/26/18. (ARL) (Entered: 03/26/2018)
03/30/2018 141 ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a status conference is set in this matter on June 28, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. in my chambers. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 3/20/18. (ARL) (Entered: 03/30/2018)
06/25/2018 142 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Fayne, Samuel) (Entered: 06/25/2018)
06/25/2018 143 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a status conference is set in this matter on June 28, 2018 is reset and will now be held on July 20, 2018 at 11:30 a.m. in Courtroom 16 South. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 6/25/18. (KXS) (Entered: 06/25/2018)

06/26/2018 144 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 142 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Fayne, Samuel) filed by Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Meredith Walker, Bradley Jiles, Ronald Tucker, Brittany Ellis, James Redmond, III, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Keilee Fant, Shilita Thomas, Quinton M. Thomas, Mawoussime Adoboe, Veronica Murphy ; ORDERED DENIED as moot. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 6/26/2018. (NEP) (Entered: 06/26/2018)

07/17/2018 145 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Robinson, John) (Entered: 07/17/2018)

07/18/2018 146 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 145 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Robinson, John) filed by Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Meredith Walker, Bradley Jiles, Ronald Tucker, Brittany Ellis, James Redmond, III, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Keilee Fant, Shilita Thomas, Quinton M. Thomas, Mawoussime Adoboe, Veronica Murphy ; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 7/18/18. (KEK) (Entered: 07/18/2018)

07/18/2018 147 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority re 106 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Counts I through V of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint, 108 MOTION to Dismiss :Count VI of Plaintiffs' second amended class action complaint by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Meredith Walker . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Webb v. City of Maplewood (8th Cir. 2018))(Fayne, Samuel) (Entered: 07/18/2018)

07/20/2018 148 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Rodney W. Sippel: Status Conference held on 7/20/2018. Discussion held. Written Order to follow. (Court Reporter:Shannon White, Shannon_White@moed.uscourts.gov, 314−244−7966) (ARL) (Entered: 07/20/2018)

09/14/2018 149 ORDER...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant City of St. Ann's motions to dismiss [ 106 and 108 ] are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall show cause no later than September 21, 2018 why Counts I−V should not be severed from Count VI. ( Show Cause Response due by 9/21/2018.) Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 9/14/2018. (NEP) (Entered: 09/14/2018)

09/20/2018 150 STIPULATION re 149 Order, as to the Court's severance proposal by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) (Entered: 09/20/2018)

09/28/2018 151 ANSWER to 96 Amended Complaint,, by St. Ann, Missouri, City of.(Reeves, John) (Entered: 09/28/2018)

10/04/2018 152 ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims in Count VI regarding the conditions of the City of St. Anns jail are SEVERED from this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims in Count VI are DISMISSED without prejudice from the present case subject to being refiled in a new case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall open a new civil matter without fees and docket Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint 96 in the new case. The attorneys of record in this case shall be added to the new case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file an second amended complaint in the newly opened case, no later than October 12, 2018, asserting only their claims relevant to Count VI. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall file an answer to the second amended complaint in the newly opened case no later than October 19, 2018. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an order(s) will be issued setting a Rule 16 Conference in both these cases as soon as the new case is opened. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 10/4/18. (ARL) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018

***REMARK: New civil case opened per order 152 under case number 4:18−cv−01699 RWS. (JWD) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/05/2018 153 RULE 16 ORDER: This case is assigned to Track: 2. Joint Scheduling Plan due by 10/26/2018. Rule 16 Conference set for 11/2/2018 11:00 AM in Chambers before District Judge Rodney W. Sippel. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 10/5/18. (ARL) (Entered: 10/05/2018)
10/26/2018 154 JOINT SCHEDULING PLAN by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. . (Stallings, Michelle) (Entered: 10/26/2018)
10/31/2018 155 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Wiener, Seth) (Entered: 10/31/2018)
11/01/2018 156 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 155 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Wiener, Seth) filed by Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Meredith Walker, Bradley Jiles, Ronald Tucker, Brittany Ellis, James Redmond, III, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Keilee Fant, Shilita Thomas, Quinton M. Thomas, Mawoussime Adoboe, Veronica Murphy ; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 11/1/18. (ARL) (Entered: 11/01/2018)
11/02/2018 157 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: This case is assigned to Track: 3. Motion to Join Parties due by 1/18/2019. Discovery Completion due by 12/13/2019. Non−Dispositive Motions due by 12/24/2019. ADR Future Reference 5/31/2019. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 11/2/18. (KEK) (Entered: 11/02/2018)
11/12/2018 158 ENTRY of Appearance by John Michael Reeves, Jr for Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) (Entered: 11/12/2018)
11/13/2018 159 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney ;attorney/firm Brinker & Doyen, LLP by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Brinker, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/13/2018)
11/14/2018 160 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 159 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney ;attorney/firm Brinker & Doyen, LLP by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Brinker, Jeffrey) filed by St. Ann, Missouri, City of; ORDERED GRANTED. Attorney Jeffrey J. Brinker and Michelle V. Stallings terminated. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 11/14/18. (KEK) (Entered: 11/14/2018)
11/29/2018 161 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney ;attorney/firm Nathaniel R. Carroll by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Carroll, Nathaniel) (Entered: 11/29/2018)
12/03/2018 162 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 161 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney ;attorney/firm Nathaniel R. Carroll by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Carroll, Nathaniel) filed by Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Meredith Walker, Bradley Jiles, Ronald Tucker, Brittany Ellis, James Redmond, III, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Keilee Fant, Shilita Thomas, Quinton M. Thomas, Mawoussime Adoboe, Veronica Murphy ; ORDERED GRANTED. Attorney Nathaniel Richard Carroll terminated.Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 12/3/18. (ARL) (Entered: 12/03/2018)
01/17/2019 163 ENTRY of Appearance by Blake Daniel Hill for Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Hill, Blake) (Entered: 01/17/2019)
01/17/2019 164 ENTRY of Appearance by William A. Hellmich for Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Hellmich, William) (Entered: 01/17/2019)
03/16/2019 165 Consent MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) (Entered: 03/16/2019)
03/16/2019 166 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings for failure to join an indispensable party under Rule 19 by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) (Entered: 03/16/2019)

03/16/2019 167 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 166 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings for failure to join an indispensable party under Rule 19 filed by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) (Entered: 03/16/2019)

03/16/2019 168 NOTICE filing exhibits in support of motion for judgment on the pleadings: by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of re 166 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings for failure to join an indispensable party under Rule 19 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Text of Rule 19), # 2 Exhibit B (Relevant Missouri Law), # 3 Exhibit C (Mo.S.Ct. R. 37))(Reeves, John) (Entered: 03/16/2019)

03/16/2019 169 MOTION for oral argument: by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of re 166 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings for failure to join an indispensable party under Rule 19 (Reeves, John) Modified on 3/20/2019 (NEP). (Entered: 03/16/2019)

03/18/2019 170 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 165 Consent MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) filed by St. Ann, Missouri, City of ; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 3/18/2019. (NEP) (Entered: 03/18/2019)

03/20/2019 171 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 166 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings for failure to join an indispensable party under Rule 19, 160 Docket Text Order,, Add and Terminate Attorneys, by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Waldron, John) (Entered: 03/20/2019)

03/21/2019 172 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 171 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 166 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings for failure to join an indispensable party under Rule 19, 160 Docket Text Order,, Add and Terminate Attorneys, by Plaintiffs ; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 3/21/2019. (NEP) (Entered: 03/21/2019)

04/08/2019 173 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 166 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings for failure to join an indispensable party under Rule 19 filed by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Waldron, John) (Entered: 04/08/2019)

04/18/2019 174 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 166 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings for failure to join an indispensable party under Rule 19 by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) (Entered: 04/18/2019)

04/19/2019 175 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 174 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 166 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings for failure to join an indispensable party under Rule 19 by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) filed by St. Ann, Missouri, City of ; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 4/19/19. (ARL) (Entered: 04/19/2019)

04/26/2019 176 MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation as to reply memorandum by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) (Entered: 04/26/2019)

04/26/2019 177 REPLY to Response to Motion re 166 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings for failure to join an indispensable party under Rule 19 filed by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Addendum 1)(Reeves, John) (Entered: 04/26/2019)

04/30/2019 178 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 176 MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation as to reply memorandum by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) filed by St. Ann, Missouri, City of ; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 4/30/2019. (NEP) (Entered: 04/30/2019)

05/20/2019

NOTICE: IF YOU HAVE ALREADY UPGRADED YOUR PACER ACCOUNT YOU CAN DISREGARD THIS NOTICE. IF YOU DO NOT UPGRADE YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO FILE IN THE SYSTEM AFTER MAY 31, 2019. PLEASE UPGRADE IMMEDIATELY. If you are using a shared account to file cases, you will need to create an individual account; instructions can be found at:https://www.moed.uscourts.gov/sites/moed/files/Register−for−New−PACER−account.pdf. If you already have an individual account, it will need to be upgraded; instructions can be

found https://www.moed.uscourts.gov/sites/moed/files/Upgrade−Current−PACER−Account.pdf. If you need further assistance contact the MOED CM/ECF Help Desk at 314−244−7650 or moedml_cmecf_help@moed.uscourts.gov. (CSAW) (Entered: 05/20/2019)
05/31/2019 179 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Alternative Dispute Resolution. This case is referred to: mediation. Designation of Lead Counsel: Blake Alexander Strode. ADR Completion Deadline due by 7/31/2019. ADR Compliance Report Deadline due by 8/14/2019. Designation of Neutral/Conference Report due by 6/20/2019. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on May 31, 2019. (MCB) (Entered: 05/31/2019)
06/03/2019 180 Consent MOTION for Extension of: Time to Disclose Experts by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Waldron, John) (Entered: 06/03/2019)
06/07/2019 181 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 180 Consent MOTION for Extension of: Time to Disclose Experts by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Waldron, John) filed by Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Meredith Walker, Bradley Jiles, Ronald Tucker, Brittany Ellis, James Redmond, III, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Keilee Fant, Shilita Thomas, Quinton M. Thomas, Mawoussime Adoboe, Veronica Murphy; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 6/7/19. (KEK) (Entered: 06/07/2019)
06/19/2019 182 Joint MOTION to Vacate 179 Order Referring Case to ADR, by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Waldron, John) (Entered: 06/19/2019)
06/20/2019 183 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' joint motion to vacate my order referring this matter to alternative dispute resolution 182 is DENIED. This matter shall be referred to alternative dispute resolution on September 9, 2019, and that reference shall terminate on November 29, 2019.( ADR Future Reference 9/9/2019.) Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 6/20/19. (ARL) (Entered: 06/20/2019)
07/11/2019 184 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney ;attorney/firm Albert Teng by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Meredith Walker. (Teng, Albert) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
07/12/2019 185 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 184 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney ;attorney/firm Albert Teng by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Meredith Walker. (Teng, Albert) filed by Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Meredith Walker, Bradley Jiles, Brittany Ellis, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Mawoussime Adoboe, Veronica Murphy ; ORDERED GRANTED, Attorney Albert Teng terminated.Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 7/12/19. (ARL) (Entered: 07/12/2019)
09/03/2019 186 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts I through V through VII, and motion for oral argument of the motion [ 166 and 169 ] are both DENIED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 9/3/19. (KXS) (Entered: 09/03/2019)
09/05/2019 187 ENTRY of Appearance by Jacqueline Marie Kutnik−Bauder for Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Meredith Walker. (Kutnik−Bauder, Jacqueline) (Entered: 09/05/2019)
09/12/2019 188 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Alternative Dispute Resolution. This case is referred to: Mediation Designation of Lead Counsel: Blake Alexander Strode. ADR Completion Deadline due by 11/29/2019. ADR Compliance Report Deadline due by 12/13/2019. Designation of Neutral/Conference Report due by 10/3/2019.Signed by District Judge

Rodney W. Sippel on 9/12/19. (ARL) (Entered: 09/12/2019)
09/16/2019 189 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 181 Docket Text Order,, 157 Case Management Order, by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Hill, Blake) (Entered: 09/16/2019)
09/17/2019 190 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney ;attorney/firm John M. Reeves by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) (Entered: 09/17/2019)
09/19/2019 191 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 190 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney ;attorney/firm John M. Reeves by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reeves, John) filed by St. Ann, Missouri, City of ; ORDERED GRANTED, Attorney John Michael Reeves, Jr. terminated. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 9/19/19. (ARL) (Entered: 09/19/2019)
09/19/2019 192 AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' joint motion to amend the case management order 189 is GRANTED. See Order for full details. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 9/19/19. (ARL) (Entered: 09/19/2019)
09/20/2019 193 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney ;attorney/firm Maurice B. Graham by In Re Maurice B Graham. (Graham, Maurice) (Entered: 09/20/2019)
09/23/2019 194 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 193 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney ;attorney/firm Maurice B. Graham by In Re Maurice B Graham. (Graham, Maurice) filed by Maurice B Graham ; ORDERED GRANTED, Attorney Maurice B. Graham terminated. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 9/23/2019. (NEP) (Entered: 09/23/2019)
09/27/2019 195 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Seth J. Wiener ;attorney/firm Seth J. Wiener by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Wiener, Seth) (Entered: 09/27/2019)
09/30/2019 196 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 195 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Seth J. Wiener ;attorney/firm Seth J. Wiener by Plaintiffs; ORDERED GRANTED, Attorney Seth Jason Wiener terminated. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 9/30/2019. (NEP) (Entered: 09/30/2019)
10/03/2019 197 Joint MOTION for Extension of: Referral for ADR by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Hill, Blake) (Entered: 10/03/2019)
10/03/2019 198 Joint MOTION for Extension (Amended to correct signature) of: Referral for ADR by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Hill, Blake) (Entered: 10/03/2019)
10/04/2019 199 ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties joint motions to extend the deadline for completing alternative dispute resolution 197 and 198 are GRANTED. This matter shall be referred to alternative dispute resolution on May 1, 2020, and that reference shall terminate on June 30, 2020.Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 10/4/19. (ARL) (Entered: 10/04/2019)
01/22/2020 200 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following cases shall be transferred to District Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk. All deadlines previously set remain in effect unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 1/22/2020. (KXS) (Entered: 01/22/2020)
02/04/2020 201 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney ;attorney/firm Sima Atri by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Meredith Walker. (Kutnik−Bauder, Jacqueline) (Entered: 02/04/2020)
02/05/2020 202 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 201 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney ;attorney/firm Sima Atri by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Bradley Jiles, Donya Pierce, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Meredith Walker. ; ORDERED GRANTED, (Attorney Sima Atri terminated.). Signed by District Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk on 2/5/2020. (NEP) (Entered: 02/05/2020)
03/02/2020 203 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 192 Case Management Order − Amended by Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Charles Riley,

Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Waldron, John) (Entered: 03/02/2020)
03/03/2020 204 AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' joint motion to amend the case management order 203 is GRANTED. The case management deadlines are amended and extended as follows: [SEE ORDER FOR FULL DETAILS] Signed by District Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk on 3/3/2020. (KEK) (Entered: 03/03/2020)
03/04/2020 205 ENTRY of Appearance by John P. Torbitzky for Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Torbitzky, John) (Entered: 03/04/2020)
03/04/2020 206 ENTRY of Appearance by Timothy J. Reichardt for Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Reichardt, Timothy) (Entered: 03/04/2020)
03/31/2020 207 ENTRY of Appearance by Maureen Hanlon for Plaintiffs Mawoussime Adoboe, Roelif Earl Carter, Angela Davis, Brittany Ellis, Keilee Fant, Bradley Jiles, Veronica Murphy, Donya Pierce, James Redmond, III, Charles Riley, Quinton M. Thomas, Shilita Thomas, Ronald Tucker, Meredith Walker. (Hanlon, Maureen) (Entered: 03/31/2020)
04/24/2020 208 Consent MOTION for Protective Order by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Consent Protective Order)(Hill, Blake) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
04/27/2020 209 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 208 Consent MOTION for Protective Order by Defendant St. Ann, Missouri, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Consent Protective Order)(Hill, Blake) filed by St. Ann, Missouri, City of ; ORDERED GRANTED. In addition to the procedure for challenging designations of confidential or highly confidential discovery material described in paragraph 6 of the protective order, the Court requires the following before submission of a discovery−related motion: (1) the parties must meet and confer in person or by telephone, and (2) the parties must submit a 3−page joint memorandum outlining the point(s) on which they disagree and requesting a conference with the Court. The parties shall not file any motion related to confidentiality designations under this protective order until after the Court has held such a conference. Signed by District Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk on 4/27/20. (ARL) (Entered: 04/27/2020)
04/27/2020 210 CONSENT PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH CLAWBACK PROVISION − See Protective Order for details. Signed by District Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk on 4/27/20. (ARL) (Entered: 04/27/2020)