Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 1 of 24

RECEiVED
IN THE UNITED STATES DIscTcquR FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICTLO ALAAMA 1

SHARNALLE MITCHELL, LORENZO BROWN,

DEB -RA P. HCETT. CLV

US u 1 STCid

3 ALA flCTr'T
I Li Li L i

4

COURTNEY TUBBS,

TITO WILLIAMS,

Plaintiffs,

V.
THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY,

Case No. _________

Defendant.

COMPLAINT Introduction The Plaintiffs in this case are each impowrished people who were jailed by the City of Montgomery because they were unable to pay a debt owed to the City from traffic tickets. In each case, the City ordered the Plamtiff either to pay the City immediately or to "sit out" his or her debt in the City jail at a rate of $50 per day. Although the Plaintiffs pleaded that they were Unable to pay due to their poverty, each was sent to jail for nonpayment and none was afforded the inquiry into their ability to pay that the United States and Alabama Constitutions require. Once locked in the City's jail, the Plaintiffs were told that they could reduce their time in jail by working off their debts for an additional $25 per day if they agreed to perform janitorial tasks assigned by City employees, including cleaning feces and blood from jail floors and wiping the jail bars inside their overcrowded cells.

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 2 of 24
The treatment of Sharnalle Mitchell, Lorenzo Brown, Tito Williams, and Courtney Tubbs reveals systemic illegality perpetrated by the City of Montgomery against some of its. poorest people. The City of Montgomery, as a matter of policy and practice, engages in the same conduct against many other indigent human beings on a daily basis, unlawfully jailing people if they are too poor to pay traffic tickets and the associated fees that the City increasingly levies.
By and through their attorneys, Plaintiffs seek in this civil action the vindication of their fundamental rights, compensation for the violations that they suffered, injunctive relief assuring that their rights will not be violated again, and a declaration that the City's conduct is unlawful. In the year 2014, these practices have no place in our society.
Nature of the Action' It is the policy and practice of the City of Montgomery to jail people when they cannot afford to pay debts owed to the City resulting from prior traffic tickets without conducting any inquiry into the person's ability to pay and without considering alternatives to imprisonment as required by federal and Alabama law. 2. It is the policy and practice of the City to jail indigent people for these debts without informing people of their right to counsel and without providing adequate counsel. 3. It is the policy and practice of the City to hold prisoners in the City jail at a rate of $50 per day, "serving out" their debts until the debts are extinguished. It is the policy and practice of the City to tell inmates that their time in City jail can be further reduced if they agree to "work oft" their debts to the City While in jail by laboring at janitorial and other work for the City at a rate of $25 per day toward their debts.
'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.

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 3 of 24
4. It is the policy and practice of the City of Montgomery to contract with a private for-profit corporation, Judicial Correction Services, Inc. ("JCS, Inc"), to perform what the City calls "probation" services, which consists of collecting City debts in exchange for fees added to the debts owed by people who cannot afford to pay their traffic ticket fees, costs, and surcharges immediately. It is the policy and practice of the City of Montgomery to rely on the discretionary recommendations and factual representations of this private entity to make decisions about Whether to arrest a person, what disposition to enter in a person's case, and whether to put the person on "probation" or to require immediate payment or jail despite the fact that the private entity has a significant personal financial stake in these judicial enforcement proceedings.
5. Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief. Jurisdiction and Venue
6. This is a civil rights action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. § 1595, and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq.., and the Fourth, Sixth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U. S .. § 1331 and 1343.
7. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Parties
8. Plaintiff Sharnlle Mitchell is a 23-year-old resident of Montgomery. Plaintiff Lorenzo Brown is a 58-year-old resident of Montgomery. Plaintiff Courtney Tubbs is a 23-yearOld resident of Montgomery. Plaintiff Tito Williams is a 38-year-old resident of Montgomery.
9. Defendant City of Montgomery is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Alabama, that operates the Montgomery City Jail and the Montgomery Municipal Court.
3

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 4 of 24

Factual Background

A. The Plaintiffs' Imprisonment

L

Plaintiff Sharnalle Mitchell

10. Sharnalle Mitchell is a 23-year-old woman and a mother of two children—a 1-

year-old boy and a 4-year-old girl.

11. On January 26, 2014, Montgomery City police officers came to Ms. Mitchell's

home and arrested her because she owed the City money from traffic tickets issued in 2010.

Officers took Ms. Mitchell away from her two children and brought her to the City jail.

12. The next day, January 27, 2014, she was brought to the City court and was told

that she would not be released from jail unless she could pay the total amount of the fines, costs,

associated fees, and extra surcharges from her tickets, which she was told was now in excess of

$4,500. Ms. Mitchell told the City prosecutor and the court that she was too poor to pay.

13. The City Attorney and City judge did not make any inquiry into her ability to pay

or into any alternatives to imprisonient as required by federal and Alabama law, and the City

did not appoint her an attorney to represent her at the hearing. The City judge instead told Ms.

Mitchell that she would have to "serve out" her fine at a rate of $50 per day in the City jai l.2

14. When Ms. Mitchell was taken back to the City jail, she was given a sheet of paper

stating that her jail term had been reduced to 58 days "or" payment of $2,907. See Exhibit 1.

Ms. Mitchell was also informed by jail guards that she could "work off" an additional $25 per

2 According to JCS, Inc., Ms. Mitchell was ineligible for the company's "probation" services because the company believed that she was not making reliable payments to the company when placed on "probation" in the past. The City policy is to check with JCS, Inc. prior to making a case decision and to rely on the company's discretion about whether to put someone on "probation" or not.
The statements in court about the amount owed and the jail term to be served almost invariably differ from what debtors are told when they return upstairs to the jail. Typically, the jail term as announced by the judge is reduced, and some portion of the debt is reserved so that debtors, like Plaintiffs, are placed back on a "payment plan" when released This practice ensures the City's ability to continue to hold hearings to charge supervision fees and other charges through the private "probation" provider responSible for collecting the debts.
4

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 5 of 24

day toward her debt to the City if she agreed to perform labor consisting of janitorial tasks, including cleaning floors and wiping jail bars.

15. Desperate to get back to her young children, Ms. Mitchell accepted this

opportunity on her first day in jail. Thereafter, she labored to clean the floors and jail bars as

directed by City jail employees on as many other occasions as she could.

16. Attached to this Complaint is a photograph of Ms. Mitchell's initial desperate

attempt to account for how much of her debt she "worked off' in this way, which she calculated

by hand each night on the back of the piece of paper given to her by the City court so that She

could determine when she could be released to her family. See Exhibit 3.

17. Prior to herjailing, Ms. Mitchell earned money from styling people's hair to

support herself and her two children. Based on her income in 2013, Ms. Mitchell and her

children were subsisting at about 33% below the federal poverty line. 4 Because of her lack of

resources, Ms. Mitchell relies on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or '-'Food Stamps") and the Women, Infants, Children (WIC) program to feed her family.

18. At the time she was jailed in 2014, Ms. Mitchell did not own a house, car,

financial instruments, Or any other significant assets. She had no bank account She was struggling to pay the utility bills and to provide clothes for her children.

H.

Plaintiff Lorenzo Brown

19. Lorenzo Brown is a 58-year-old disabled Montgomery resident. He was arrested

early in the morning on January 24, 2014, when City police came to the dilapidated boarding

This number likely substantially overstates Ms. Mitchell's financial resources. Ms. Mitchell estimates her 2013 revenue from hair styling at approximately $14,000. Her actual earnings were far lower, however, because Ms. Mitchell is responsible for purchasing all of the equipment and supplies necessary for her work. The federal poverty line for a family of three was $19,530 in 2013. Ms. Mitchell had not worked for several weeks pnor to her jailing. See Exhibit 4.

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 6 of 24
house in which he lives and took him into custody for failure to pay court fines, fees, and surcharges arising from traffic tickets issued in 2010.
20. Mr. Brown was kept in jail for three days until January 27, 2014, when he was brought to the Municipal Court. The Municipal Court informed Mr. Brown that he would be released from jail if he found someone to pay half of the total amount of his outstanding balance, a sum in excess of $1,100 as reported to Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown informed the court about his previous drug addiction and his financial inability to pay the debt, and he asked the court for mercy.
21. The court, without conducting any inquiry into Mr. Brown's ability to pay, without appointing Mr. Brown an attorney to represent him at the hearing, and without considering any alternatives to imprisonment, ordered him to serve 44 days in City jail, purportedly to "serve out" his $2,200 debt at a rate of $50 per day.5
22. When Mr. Brown was brought back to the City jail, he was given paperwork informing him that he could be released after payment of $1,400 "or" 28 days in jail. See Exhibit 5. This document also Stated that Mr. Brown could be released "upon payment of half."
23. Mr. Brown depends on a monthly Social Security disability check for survival. He does not own a house, car, financial instruments, or any other significant assets. He maintains a bank account to collect his disability check, but it usually has no more than a few dollars in it because he survives check-to-check. See Exhibit 7.
24. Mr. Brown suffers constant pain from a variety of ailments, including spinal problems, arthritis, pain and a lack of movement in his bands, and persistent joint pain. As a result, he is not able to work consistently.
According to JCS, Inc., Mr. Brown Was ineligible for the company's "probation" services in January 2014 because the company believed that he had not made reliable payments to the company in the past.

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 7 of 24

iii.

Plaintiff Tito Williams

25. Tito Williams is a 38-year-old father of two children who lives in Montgomery

with his mother and his children.

26. ME. Williams went to the City police station on January 26, 2014, after he learned

that he had outstanding warrants for debt from unpaid traffic tickets. Upon reporting to the

police station, he was arrested and placed in the City jail (which physically connects to the police station). He was kept overnight and brought before the Municipal Court on January 27, 2014.

27., The City prosecutor and the court informed Mr. Williams that he owed the City

approximately $1,600 and asked him why he had not paid it. Mr. Williams informed the court

that he had no money to pay the City. The judge, Without conducting any inquiry into Mr.

Williams's ability to pay and without considering any alternatives to imprisonment, ordered him

to serve out his debt at $50 per day.

28. When Mr. Williams returned to the City jail, he was given paperwork that told

him that he would be released if he paid $1,164 "or" served 23 days in jail. See Exhibit 8. 29. Mr. Williams was told by City jail employees that he could "work off' his debt

and be released from confinemert earlier at a rate of $25 credit toward his debts per day if he agreed to labor for the City while in jail, including performing janitorial tasks and serving food at

the jail. During Mr. Williams's first few days at the jail, several incidents involving another inmate led to a significant mess of blood and feces throughout an area of the jail. City jail employees did not want to clean the mess and offered extra labor credits to any inmate who

agreed to clean the blood and feces,. Mr. Williams, desperate to get home to his family, agreed to

7

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 8 of 24

clean the blood and feces from the jail floors On several occasions despite the extraordinary

discomfort that the task brought him.6

30. At the time of his jailing, Mr. Williams had very recently obtained employment

for a few weeks, but he lost his job while he sat in the City jail for his traffic ticket debt.

31. Since his release, Mr. Williams has obtained a new job that pays near the

minimum wage. The new job is approximately a 20-minute drive from his home, and he must

rely on his mother to drop him off and pick him up each day at great expense to his family.

iv.

Plaintiff Courtney Tubbs

32. Courtney Tubbs is a 23-year-old Montgomery resident who was incarcerated by

the State of Alabama from 2010 until 2013 due to a state criminal conviction separate froth

municipal debt. Mr. Tubbs learned after his incarceration that he had been assessed traffic

tickets by the City at the time of his 2010 arrest. He had not been aware of the tickets prior to his

state incarceration. After his release, he also received a new traffic 'ticket in the summer of 2013.

33. Since his release from prison, Mr. Tubbs has not been able to find Stable,

significant employment, and he is indigent. He lives with his little brother and his mother, who

is legally blind and who relies on Mr. Tubbs to help take care of her. He does not own a car,

house, financial instruments, or any other significant assets. He has no bank account. 34. On January 25, 2014, while sitting on his front porch, Mr. Tubbs was arrested by

City police.

35. Two days later, on January 27, 2014, Mr. Tubbs was brought before the City

judge, who asked Mr. Tubbs why he had not paid his debt. Mr. Tubbs stated that he could not

afford to pay. The judge asked Mr. Tubbs if he could get money down to the court that day, and

6 After his release, Mr. Williams did not receive the extra credit toward his debt as promised by the City. Other inmates also participated in this labor in addition to Mr. Williams.
8

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 9 of 24
Mr. Tubbs said that he could not. The court did not conduct an inquiry into Mr. Tubbs's ability to pay, did not appoint him an attorney, and did not consider alternatives to imprisonment. Mr. Tubbs was ordered imprisOned unless and until he paid $626 "or" spent 12 days in jail.
B. The Plaintiffs' Release From Cit y Jail 36. On January 30, 2014, and January 31, 2014, with the assistance of present counsel, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Brown, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Tubbs each filed petitions for emergency relief in the Montgomery County Circuit Court seeking their immediate release from confinement. After confemng with the state couft judge, counsel for the City and counsel for Plaintiffs agreed on a course of action to obtain the release of the Plaintiffs, to subsequently drop the emergency petitions for release from jail as moot, and to litigate the issues raised by the City's treatment of Plaintiffs in federal court. 37. According to this agreement and following a similar procedure to that taken by the City in two similar suits (2013-cv-732-MEF and 2013-cv-733-MEF), counsel for Plaintiff was to file Notices of Appeal in Municipal Court objecting to the orders of incarceration for the inability to pay debts, and the Plaintiffs would be subsequently released from the City jail. 38. Mr. Tubbs was released by the City on February 5, 2014, having served out the entirety of his debt. Mr. Williams was released on February 7, 2014 and told by the City to pay the remainder of his debts by May 6, 2014. See Exhibit 9. Ms. Mitchell. and Mr. Browii were each released on February 10, 2014, and the City has ordered them to pay the City $100 and $150 per month respectively or risk re-imprisonment. 7 See Exhibits 2, 6.
After the Notices of Appeal were filed as agreed, the Municipal Court notified Plaintiffs' counsel that, pursuant to policy, it intended to charge Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Brown appellate bonds of $500 for each of their tickets for the right to appeal the order imprisoning them meaning that Ms Mitchell would be charged $9,000 and Mr. Brown $5,000 for the right to appeal Counsel requested an indigency hearing for the purpose of proceeding in forma pauperis with the Notices of Appeal On the date of that hearing, the Court cancelled the previous order jailing the Plaintiffs and ordered Ms Mitchell and Mn Brown released and subject to a new debt payment plan

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 10 of 24
39. Plaintiffs Mitchell, Brown, and Williams thus continue to owe the City debts relating to fines, fees, costs, and extra unknown surcharges from traffic cases that were long ago resolved. 8 They remain impoverished and struggling to provide for themselves and their families. See Exhibits 4, 7, 10. 9 When they are again unable to afford the payments required by the City, they will again be Subject to the same unconstitutional treatment pursuant to the City's ongoing policies and practices. They thus suffer an ongoing fear of imminent imprisonment based on the City's policies and practices with respect to municipal debt collection.
C. The City's Policies and Practices 40. The treatment of Plaintiffs was caused by and is representative of the City's policies and practices concerning traffic tickets and collecting related debts. These facts, policies, and practices are similar to those alleged in the Amended Complaints in cases 201 3-cv732-MEF (Doc. 10) and 2013-cv-733-MEF (Doc. 9), which describe additional people whose rights were violated by the same policies and practices. 41. The Plaintiffs and other witnesses have observed numerous other impoverished Montgomery residents jailed by the City for non-payment of debts without a meaningful inquiry into their ability to pay, without the representation of counsel, and without the consideration of whether imprisonment serves legitimate state interests in light of available alternatives as required by federal and Alabama law.'°
8 Notwithstanding the unconstitutionality of the City's conduct regardless of state law, the City has not offered in any of the Plaintiffs' cases any valid state-law basis for continuing to put people on "probation" years after tickets are resolved, let alone for jailing them for nonpayment of old monetary debt from various costs, fees, and extra surcharges associated with that "probation."
Exhibit 10 is a copy of the sworn declaration and motion that Mr. Williams submitted to the state court while jailed. Since his release, he has obtained another low-wage job for several weeks to replace the one lost because of his jailing, but his financial situation remains materially unchanged from when he appeared before the City court. 10 In addition to violating the United States Constitution these practices also violate the Alabama Constitution and the explicit requirements of Alabama court rules. See Ala. Const. art. I, § 1,6,22; Ala. R. Crim. P. 26.11.
10

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 11 of 24
42. The Plaintiffs and other witnesses have observed numerous other people and families who were told that they or their family member would be held in jail by the City unless and itil they brought forward large sums of money to pay off debts supposedly owed for traffic tickets and subsequent surcharges.
43. On the date that each Plaintiff was order jailed, there were 67 people brought into court from the City jail for the City's jail docket, almost all of which involved money owed for traffic tickets or minor offenses. The City holds Municipal Court every business day.
44. The City's policy is to assess fines, costs, surcharges, and additional fees upon a finding of a traffic violation. If the person can afford to pay the total cost, the person is permitted to pay, and the case is closed. If the person cannot afford to pay the entire amount, the City either gives the person a date by which to pay in full or puts the person on a "payment plan"
45. The City has contracted with Judicial Correction Services (JCS, Inc.) to collect those payments, referring to this system of debt collection for traffic tickets as "probation." JCS, Inc. operates what it calls an "Offender Funded Model" of probation, promising the City that it Will not charge the City for its services. Instead, JCS, Inc. charges debtors—those who cannot afford to pay their tickets immediately—additional monthly fees for the ability to be on "probation," typically $40 per month on top of whatever is owed to the City. JCS, Inc. also charges an initial "set up" fee when a person is placed on "probation." The City places people on such "probation" payment plans pursuant to general practice and standing orders.
46. If an impoverished person is unable to make a full payment, JCS, Inc. often takes out the amount owed to JCS, Inc. first so that JCS, Inc. is paid even if a person's debt to the City
is not reduced.
11

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 12 of 24
47. If a person misses payments or pays less than ordered, JCS, Inc. has the purported contractual authority and discretion to decide whether to petition the City for "revocation" of probation.. JCS, Inc. also has a policy of placing people who cannot make full payments—from whom the company has difficulty making a profit—in "warrant status," which can result in warrants issued for their arrest and which constitutes a JCS, Inc. determination that JCS, Inc. will not accept the person for future probation supervision. JCS cOmmunicateS this decision to the City, and the City policy is to agree not to place such people back on payment plans, requiring instead that those people pay in full or go to jail.
48. In other cases in which a person is making substantial payments, JCS, Inc. has a personal financial interest in extending a person's probation and in keeping the person ôñ a plan for as long as possible so that it can profit from the collection of more monthly fees.
49. Thus, under the City's scheme, JCS, Inc. can not only decide whether to initiate judicial revocation proceedings, but also whether a person is put on probation and what judicially ordered conditions are imposed. JCS, Inc., will also make other recommendations to the City judge concerning how JCS, Inc. believes the person has fared on probation, whether the person should be placed on probation, whether JCS, Inc. considers the person "eligible" for probation, what the amount of monthly court-ordered payments should be, and a variety of other caserelated decisions. For example, in the eases of Ms .. Mitchell and Mr. Brown, the City could not put them on payment plan probation with JCS, Inc. because JCS, Inc. declined to accept them.
50. JCS, Inc. has a personal financial interest to conduct its role as a probation officer in away that maximizes its personal profit and not necessarily as a neutral public cotirt officer.
51. JCS, Inc. uses a "probation" room inside the City building that also houses the Municipal Court, directly across from the Municipal courtroom. A JCS, Inc. employee often sits
12

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 13 of 24
in the Courtroom near the judge and advises the judge about how to handle the cases of "probationers" and potential "probationers."
52. JCS, Inc. and the City enforce a policy and practice of initiating and issuing arrest warrants when a person misses a payment or fails to make sufficient payments without considering the person's ability to pay—even when they have knowledge that the person is indigent—and without providing notice and summoning the person to court for a hearing. Instead, City policy allows the City to issue and serve arrest warrants, and City officers go to the homes of traffic debtors to arrest them.
53. The City often executes these warrants prior to or over the weekend, which results in a person serving needless extra time in jail prior to the next available court date.
54. When warrants are issued and executed, the City adds fees, costs, and surcharges to the amounts of debt already owed. In addition to court fees and JCS, Inc. fees and costs, the City routinely adds Surcharges for warrants, a "solicitor" fee, and even a 30% debt-collection fee. Navigating the origin of these numerous fees and surcharges and determining whether they are even validly assessed by the City in any particular case is a complicated inquiry involving the application of state law, local law and practice, and constitutional law to a person's case history.
55. When a person is brought into court after an arrest, the City's policy is to order them to pay their debt—or a significant portion of their debt—immediately or be held in jail until their debt is extinguished at a rate of $50 per day. If JCS, Inc. informs the City that it does not want to accept a person onto "probation," the person will be ordered to pay Of be jailed.
56. The City calls these orders "fines or days" and refers to this policy, without any irony, as "commuting" people's "sentences."
13

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 14 of 24
57. If family members are present, the City often calls them up to the bench and asks them to pay as much of their family member's debts as they can on the threat that the person Who allegedly owes the in will be jailed if the family members do not pay." The City does not conduct any meaningful inquiry into the person's ability to pay and does not even explain to people how they might claim indigency through standard forms issued by the State of Alabama.
58. As with the Plaintiffs in this case, the amount Of debt announced to debtors by the judge in court often differs from the amount listed on the paperwork that they receive on their return to the jail. The paperwork amount is usually less, meaning that people like the Plaintiffs Will often have a balance remaining after they "serve out" their fine, leading to their placement back on a payment plan and their continued supervision. The City appears to refer to this as "reopening" their cases, although this "reopening" and the corresponding modifications that it entails are not performed at any formal hearing or even in the person's presence.
59. Once people return to the jail from City court, they are told of the City policy to have them, "work off' an extra $25 per day toward their debts if the person agrees to labor in the City jail while they are imprisoned.
60. Inmates desperate to return to their families by "working off' their debts more quickly compete to be selected by City jail employees for a limited number of difficult, unsanitary, and demeaning daily labor tasks.
For example, on January 27, 2014, the same day that the Plaintiffs appeared in the City court, another local man was brought from the City jail before the court for unpaid traffic tickets. The judge informed the man and his
family, who appeared with him in court, that they would have to pay about $915 in order to get him out ofjãil or
else he would "sit out" his debt to the City. When the family informed the judge that they were too poor to pay, the judge ordered him held in custody, and the man was taken back to the City jail. The man's mother was concerned for her family because the man had recently been hired at a new manufacturing job and was still in his probationary period with his new employer. He would have been fired from his job if he served out his debt. The next day, the man's indigent, disabled mother was able to pull together some money, and she brought $452 to the clerk's office. The clerk's office accepted the money, and the man was released that afternoon.
14

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 15 of 24
61. The City's debt collection practices are enormously profitable, especially in getting family members with no legal obligation to pay any money to the City to come up with money to get their loved ones released from jail and in getting low income people to forgo basic necessities of life, in order to pay JCS, Inc. and the City in an attempt to avoid jail.
62. For example, the 2013 City of Birmingham budget reflects approximately $2.8 million from court fines and traffic citations, the City of Mobile approximately $2 million, and the City of Huntsville approximately $2.5 million. In contrast, the City of Montgomery budget reflects revenue of $15 .9 million from municipal court 'Tines and forfeitures."12
63. The City uses the money collected through these procedures to fund the City jail, to pay Municipal Court judicial salaries, to pay City Attorney's Office salaries, and to fund other portions of the City budget.
64. The City's recent "Amnesty Program" starkly demonstrates its practice of jailing persons who are unable to pay debts to the City. In May 2013, Montgomery Mayor Todd Strange and City Municipal Court Administrator Kenneth Nixon (who is also a member of the Mayor's cabinet), announced that the Municipal Court would offer an "Amnesty Program" on the first two Saturdays in June. Under thisprogram, the City announced that it would remove certain fees, eliminate arrest warrants, and institute a payment plan if individuals were unable to pay the full amount to which the City claimed it was entitled.
65. However, at least 15 people were arrested on the first day of the Amnesty Program because they had too much money allegedly outstanding (greater than $2,500) or did not bring at least $150 (or 10% of what was owed, if greater) to pay towards their debts.
12 The City's publicly available budget does not itemize "fines and forfeitures" in as much detail as do the budgets of some other cities, which makes it difficult for the public to know the exact source of these funds. But, the "fines and forfeitures" collected by the City of Montgomery appear substantially higher than those collected by any other major Alabama City, even those cities larger than Montgomery.
15

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 16 of 24
66. These policies and practices have created a culture of fear among the City's poorest residents, who are afraid even to appear in City court to explain their indigence because they know they will be jailed by the City without any meaningful process. Indeed, Mr. Nixon reported to the Montgomery Advertiser that many residents were jailed during the amnesty program becausethe y owed too much and could not pay. Mr. Nixon publicly acknowledged that the arrests probably scared others from participating in the Amnesty Program.
67. The same fear motivates many very poor City residents to sacrifice expenditures on food, clothing, utilities, sanitary home repairs, and other basic necessities of life in order to scrape together money to pay traffic debt to the City.
68. Mr. Nixon warned that, following the 2013 Amnesty Program, the City would be "stricter" about arresting people for unpaid debt. The City also has a policy of referring unpaid debt to the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office, which will send letters to debtors threatening imminent arrest if they do not pay their debts. A surcharge of 30% of the value of the debt is added to the debt to compensate the District Attorney's Office for its participation in the City's debt collection. The City purports to have the authority to arrest and jail indigent people when they cannot pay even these additional surcharges.
69. The City has stated that it seeks to use these collection programs and tactics to go after old traffic debt, including debt dating back to the 1980s.
70. As in the Plaintiff's cases, the City's policy is to modify orders of incarceration outside of any formal judicial process. These modifications include: decreasing a person's sentence from what was announced in court so that a person is released with a remaining balance owed; allowing a person's release without any hearing if the person or family members present
Ef1

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 17 of 24
some money to the City clerk; and allowing City employees to reduce the time a person is ordered to be in jail based on labor performed in the jail without any judicial involvement.
71. Plaintiffs and Witnesses have observed numerous other violations of basic constitutional rights in the Montgomery Municipal Court within the past year.
72. For example, on January 27, 2014, a homeless military veteran appeared with a social worker from the Veterans Administration. The man told the judge that he could not afford the debts but that he hoped to be receiving some disability payments from the Veterans Administration and hoped to get a job when he completed a mental health program in which he was currently enrolled. The judge told him that the City would not wait for the Veterans administration to pay the man and that, if the man could not pay by June, he would lose his job because he would be "upstairs sitting your fine out" at the City jail.
73. On that same day, the City ordered several other people to jail terms for failure to pay traffic ticket debt despite their protestations of indigence. The City did not hold any inquiry into their ability to pay as required by clearly established Alabama and federal constitutional law. These cases included:
a. A diabetic man who claimed to be too poor to afford his debt. The judge told him: "I gotta get some money before you can go." Then the judge said.- "you get $1,000 down here, you can come home." As the man attempted to protest to the judge, courtroom security took him back into custody.
b. Another inmate was brought out from the jail, and the judge told his family that he would not be released unless the family could get several hundred dollars down to the municipal court clerk's office.
c. Another woman claimed to be too poor to afford her debt to the City. The judge told her: "you've got to get this paid or you'll end up in jail." He then ordered her to pay in full within 4 weeks and told her that she would not be granted any extensions. The judge did not conduct any hearing into her indigence.
74. Plaintiffs seek the following relief and hereby demand a jury in this cause for all matters so appropriate.
17

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 18 of 24
Claims for Relief Count One: Defendant City of Montgomery Violated Plaintiffs' Rights By Jailing Them For Their Inability To Pay the City. 75. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-74. 76. The Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses have long prohibited imprisoning a person for the failure to pay money owed to the government if that person is indigent and unable to pay. Defendant violated Plaintiffs' rights by imprisoning them when they could not afford to pay the debt allegedly owed. Defendant violated Plaintiff's rights by imprisoning them, and by threatening to imprison them, 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. 77. Defendant's policy and practice of imprisoning people when they cannot afford to pay their debt and of automatically converting monetary fines into days in jail at a rate of $50 per day violates the due process and equal protection provisions of the United States Constitution. Count Two: Defendant City of Montgomery Violated Plaintiffs' Rights By Imprisoning Them For Inability To Pay Debts Without Appointing Adequate Counsel. 78. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-77. 79. Defendant violated Plaintiffs' right to the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by imprisoning Plaintiffs during proceedings initiated by City prosecutors at which Plaintiffs did not have the benefit of adequate counsel and did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive counsel. 80. The City's policy of not providing adequate counsel at hearings in which indigent people are ordered to be imprisoned in the City jail for unpaid debts, which are, in turn, based on
18

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 19 of 24
traffic violations at which the person was also unrepresented, violates the Sixth and FOurteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Count Three: Defendant City of Montgomery's Use of a Private Actor With a Personal Financial Stake in the Outcome of Judicial Proceedings and Case Decisions As a Supposedly Neutral Probation Official Violates Plaintiffs' Due Process Rights.
8L Plaintiffs incorperate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-80 above. 82. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits neutral judicial officials and neutral civil and criminal law enforcement actors ftm having a per fmaicial interest in the cases prosecuted and decided by the government. The City has contracted with a private, for-profit corporation to perform a traditional court function—probation—and made the resolution of people's cases contingent on the advice, recommendations, discretionary decisions, enforcement actions, and representations of this private entity. 83. Because this non-neutral actor profits significantly from the decisions of the City about whether to place people like Plaintiffs on probation, what conditions to require, and how vigorously to enforce those conditions, there is a realistic possibility that those financial interests will affect its judgment when it participates in those decisions. Because this private entity has a significant personal financial interest in how these cases are resolved, unlike a traditional neutral judicial actor, prosecuting authority, or probation department, the City's policies and practices violate the longstanding due process restrictions against such self-interested arrangements in American courts of justice. Count Four: Defendant City of Montgomery's Scheme of Forcing Indigent Pnsoners to Labor in the City Jail in Order to Work Off Their City Debts Violates the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Federal Law. 84. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-83 above.
19

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 20 of 24
85. The City unlawfully imprisoned Plaintiffs for a monetary debt owed to the City. On top of being unlawfully imprisoned for failure to pay debts owed to the City, Plaintiffs Mitchell and Williams were, pursuant to City policy, coerced with longer unlawful prison terms by City officials if they did not "volunteer" to labor in the City jail under disgusting conditions for an extra credit of $25 per day toward their debts .. This amounts to peonage and forced labor, whereby a person is coerced by threat of legal sanction—i.e. imprisonment—to work off a debt to .a master. It is also an abuse of the legal process that exploited Defendant's unlawful incarceration of Plaintiffs to force them to accept, in their desperation to end their unlawful incarceration more quickly, the conditions of forced labor, performing janitorial tasks that even City employees did not want to perform, such as cleaning significant amounts of blood and feces in an overcrowded jail environment.
86. Plaintiffs allegedly owed the City a solely monetary debt for traffic tickets and associated fees, costs, and surcharges. Because Plaintiffs were not imprisoned or sentenced to involuntary servitude as punishment for any crime, the Thirteenth Amendment bars the coerced Use of their labor to work Off their purely monetary debt. The City's conduct also violates federal statutory law, including 18 U.S.C. § 1589 (forced labor under threat of physical restraint or abuse of process), § 1593A (benefitting from peonage); and § 1595 (providing a civil remedy).
Count Five: Defendant City of Montgomery's Use of Jail and Threats of Jail To Collect Debts Owed to the City Violates Equal Protection Because It Imposes Unduly Harsh and Punitive Restrictions On Debtors Whose Creditor Is the Government Compared To Those Who Owe Money to Private Creditors.
87. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-86 above. 88. The United States Supreme Court has held that, when governments seek to recoup costs of prosecution from indigent defendants—for example, the cost of appointed counsel—they
20

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 21 of 24
may not take advantage of their position toimpose unduly restrictive methods of collection solely because the debt is owed to the government and not to a private creditor. Not only does the City charge additional fees only to those people who are indigent and cannot afford to pay their costs, fees, and fines in full immediately and place such indigent people on "pay only" probation when the cases of wealthier people would be closed, but by imposing imprisonment, threats of imprisonment, indeterminate "probation," and other restrictions on Plaintiffs, the City takes advantage of its control over the machinery of the City jail and police systems to deny debtors the statutory protections that every other Alabama debtor may invoke against a private creditor. This coercive policy and practice constitutes invidious discrimination a4 Violates the fundamental principles of equal protection of the laws.
Count Six: Defendant City Of Montgomery's Policy and Practice of Issuing and Serving Arrest Warrants Solely Based on Nonpayment of Monetary Debts Violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
89. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-88 above. 90. The City's policy and practice is to issue and serve arrest warrants at the homes of those who have not paid their traffic debt. These warrants are sought, issued, and served without any inquiry into the person's ability to pay even when the City has advance knowledge that the person is impoverished and unable to pay the debts. These warrants are sought, issued, and served without any finding of probable cause that the person has committed any offense. The City 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. As in the case of Mr. Brown, the City often chooses to serve these warrants prior to a weekend so that a person can spend, as did Mr. Brown, up to three ftill days in the City jail prior to the next court session, a practice designed to increase the time a person spends in jail and that is arbitrary and
21

In

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 22 of 24

without justification for such delay. These practices violate the Fourth and Fourteenth
AiflendrPents and result in a deprivation of fundament1 liberty without adequate due process.
Count Seven: Defendant City of Montgomery's Policy and Practice of Requiring a Costly "Appeal Bond" for Indigent People Without Conducting a Meaningful Inquiry Into Their Ability to Pay Violates Due Process and Equal Protection.
91. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegation.s in paragraphs 1-90 above.
92. When Plaintiffs Mitchell and Brown attempted to file an emergency appeal of the
order imprisoning them for owing the City a monetary debt, the City followed its policy of
attempting to bar their appeal unless Plaintiffs paid to the City a total of $9,000 and $5,000
respectively, significantly more than the amount either owed to the City, which Plaintiffs were
already unable to afford—a fact of poverty that led to their illegal incarceration in the first place.
93. This policy of charging appeal bonds to those who cannot afford them, which a
previous decision from this Court held unconstitutional, violates the equal protection rights
secured by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Req uest for-Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court issue the following relief:
a. A declaratory judgment that the Defendant City violated Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights by imprisoning them because they could not afford to pay the City and by imprisoning them without conducting any meaningful inquiry into their ability to pay or into any alternatives to incarceration;
b. A declaratory judgment that Defendant violated Plaintiffs' rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments by imprisoning them WithOut appointing adequate counsel at the judicial proceeding that led to their incarceration;
c. A declaratory judgment that Defendant violated Plaintiffs' rights by employing and relying On a non-neutral "probation" officer who has a significant personal financial stake in the outcome of Plaintiffs' judicial proceedings;
d. A declaratory judgment that the City violated Plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory rights by coercing them into performing labor in its jail in order to work off their debt;
e. 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;
22

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 23 of 24

f. A declaratory judgment that Defendant violated Plaintiffs' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by issuing and serving arrest warrants without probable cause, with unreasonable delay prior to presentment, and without providing pre-deprivation of liberty process where such process is easily available to the City;
g. A declaratory judgment that Defendant violated Plaintiffs' equal protection rights by charging indigent people appeal bonds on Which the right to pursue and appeal Was purportedly contingent;
h An order and judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendant from enforcing the above-described unconstitutional policies and practices against Plaintiffs;
i. A judgment compensating the Plaintiffs for the damages that they suffered as a result of the City's unconstitutional and unlawful conduct;
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.

_'14, ^ Respectfully submitted,
/s/Matthew Swerdlin

Matthew Swerdlin (ASB-9O9i-M0

3/, r/,'y

MATTHEW SWERDLIN, Attorney at Law P.O. Box 550206 Birmingham, AL 35255 (205) 440-3214 matthewswerdlingmail.com

'Alec Karakatsanis (D.C. Bar No. 999294) (Pending Contemporaneous Pro Hac Vice Motion)
Executive Director Equal Justice Under Law 916 G Street, NW Suite 701 Washington, DC 20001 (202)m681-2409 alec@equaijusticeunderlaw.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

23

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 24 of 24
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following parties via First Class Mail on March 17, 2014:
City of Montgomery, Alabama
do City Attorney's Office
Legal Department 103 North Perry Street Montgomery, AL 36104

 
 Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 18 Filed 05/01/14 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

SHARNALLE MITCHELL, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

) CASE NO.: 2:14-cv-186-MEF

)

(WO - Do Not Publish)

)

)

)

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER

On May 1, 2014, the Court held a hearing to address Plaintiffs Sha rnalle Mitchell

(“Mitchell”), Lorenzo Brown (“Brown”), and Tito William s’s (“Williams”) (collectively,

“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Prelim inary Injunction (Doc. #2). The hearing was attended by

counsel for both parties. Based on the subm issions of the parties, the applicable law,

representations made by counsel at the hearing, and the record as a whole, the Court finds

that Plaintiffs have demonstrated: (1) that Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success

on the m erits of its claim that Defendant City of Montgom ery (“the City”) violated their

Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights as outlined in Bearden v.

Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983), by imprisoning them, and by threatening to imprison them,

for failing to pay the balance on outstanding fines, fees, and costs associated with traffic

tickets they incurred without first conducting a meaningful inquiry into the reasons for their

failure to pay, including their potential status as indigents, and without considering

alternatives to im prisonment; (2) that there is a substantial threat of irreparable injury to

Plaintiffs if the preliminary injunction does not issue because there is no evidence suggesting

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 18 Filed 05/01/14 Page 2 of 3
the City will refrain from confining Plain tiffs at the upcom ing May 9, 2014 com pliance hearing, or at any time thereafter, without first inquiring in a meaningful way into the reasons for their failure to pay; (3) the harmsuffered by Plaintiffs absent an injunction would exceed the harm suffered by the City if the injunc tion issues; and (4) an injunction would not disserve the public interest. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that issuing a prelim inary injunction is appropriate and necessary to protect Plaintiffs’ rights until sucha time as the Court renders a decision on the merits.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The City of Montgomery is enjoined from collecting or attempting to collect all outstanding fines, fees, costs, surcharges or the outstanding balance of any monies owed to the City or to Judicial Correction Services, Inc. (“JCS ”) associated with traffic tickets by Sharnalle Mitchell, Lorenzo Brown, and Tito Williams until further order of the Court. 2. On or before June 2, 2014, the City shlal submit to the Court a comprehensive plan listing the current or proposed policies and procedures the City follows or intends to follow in making future determinations of an individual’s ability to pay, the policies and procedures the City follows or intends to follow in m aking future determinations as to reasons for an individual’s failure to pay, the policies and procedures the City follows or intends to follow in m aking future determ inations of any alternative m easures of punishm ent other than imprisonment for the non-payment of fines, and the policies and procedures the City follows or intends to follow in making future determinations of whether these alternative measures
2

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MEF-CSC Document 18 Filed 05/01/14 Page 3 of 3
are adequate to m eet the City’s interests in punishing and deterring the non-paym ent of fines, which shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws and the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure.
3. On or before June 13, 2014, Plaintiffs shall subm it objections to the City’s proposed plan.
4. The Court will hold a hear ing to address the adequacy of the City’s current or proposed plan on June 30, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., in the United States Courthouse, One Church Street, Courtroom 2A, Montgomery, Alabama.
5. Montgom ery City Attorney Kim O. Fe hl, Municipal Court Director Kenneth Nixon, Montgomery City Police Chief Kevin J. Murphy, and the Presiding Montgom ery Municipal Court Judge shall be present in person for the June 30, 2014 hearing.
6. This Preliminary Injunction Order shall apply to the parties, the parties’ officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and any other person who is in active concert or participation with the parties or the parties’ offic ers, a gents, servants, em ployees, and attorneys.
7. Because the risk is low that the City will incur substantial expenses, costs, or damages during the pendency of this prelim inary injunction, because Plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on the m erits, and because Plaintiffs have lim ited financial resources, no security bond will be required under Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DONE this the 1st day of May, 2014, at 4:54 p.m., Central Standard Time. /s/ Mark E. Fuller
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3

 
 Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51 Filed 11/17/14 Page 1 of 2
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

SHARNALLE MITCHELL, LORENZO )

BROWN, TITO WILLIAMS,

)

COURTNEY TUBBS, TEQUILA

)

BALLARD, WILLIE WILLIAMS, )

THOMAS ELLIS, GAVIN

)

BULLOCK, KENDRICK MAULL, )

TAMARA TUDLEY, JERMAINE

)

TYLER, JANET EDWARDS,

)

RISKO McDANIEL, DEMETRI

)

COLVIN, CARL WILLIAMS, and )

RAYSHONE WILLIAMS,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CITY OF MONTGOMERY,

)

HONORABLE LES HAYES, III, )

HONORABLE MILTON WESTRY, )

HONORABLE DARRON HENDLEY, )

and HONORABLE LLORIA JAMES, )

)

Defendants.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14cv186-MHT (WO)

JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Based on the representation of the parties before the court, it is ORDERED that: (1) The parties’ joint motion for entry of final declaratory and injunctive relief (doc. no. 47) is granted.

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51 Filed 11/17/14 Page 2 of 2
(2) The parties to the agreement to settle declaratory and injunctive claims (“settlement agreement”), which is attached to this judgment, are to comply with its terms for the periods set out therein.
(3) The plaintiffs’ request for declaratory and injunctive relief is resolved in full subject only to the further jurisdiction of this court to enforce the settlement agreement for the periods set out therein.
(4) The plaintiffs are to notify this court of any material breaches of the settlement agreement after making full attempts to resolve the dispute with the parties as set out in the settlement agreement.
The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
This case is not closed. DONE, this the 17th day of November, 2014. /s/ Myron H. Thompson___ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 1 of 33

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

SHARNALLE MITCHELL, LORENZO

)

BROWN, TITO WILLIAMS, COURTNEY )

TUBBS, TEQUILA BALLARD, WILLIE

)

WILLIAMS, THOMAS ELLIS, GAVIN

)

BULLOCK, KENDRICK MAUL, TAMARA )

DUDLEY, JERMAINE TYLER, JANET

)

EDWARDS, RISKO MCDANIEL, DEMETRI )

COLVIN, CARL WILLIAMS, RAYSHONE )

WILLIAMS,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

CITY OF MONTGOMERY,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. 2:14-cv-186

AGREEMENT TO SETTLE INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF CLAIMS

COME NOW the PARTIES to this Settlement Agreement, the sixteen Plaintiffs in the

above-styled action, the City of Montgomery (hereinafter referred to as “the City”), and Presiding

Judge Les Hayes, III, Judge Darron Hendley, Judge Lloria James, and Judge Milton Westry (each

in his or her official capacity as Judge of the Municipal Court of the City of Montgomery)

(hereinafter referred to collectively as “the Judges”) and, for good and valuable consideration,

enter into this Agreement as a full and final settlement of all the Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory

and injunctive relief.

WHEREAS, the City denies any liability for the claims alleged by the Plaintiffs and further

denies having authority over the Judges of the Municipal Court or over the Municipal Court itself

in connection with the counts and claims pled in the above-styled action and takes the position that

the relief requested cannot be provided by the City;

1

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 2 of 33
WHEREAS, the Judges of the Municipal Court of the City of Montgomery, without waiving any potential immunity to claims for damages, attorneys’ fees, or any other relief or any defenses thereto, and to further promote the resolution of the lawsuit and thereby any potential proceedings which might be brought against them in the future;
WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs take the position that the City of Montgomery is responsible and liable for—and capable of preventing and remedying in the future—the constitutional violations alleged by the Plaintiffs, which the Plaintiffs contend involved various City officials, employees, and agents. Plaintiffs further take the position that the result of the City’s actions was the illegal jailing of indigent City residents.1 Plaintiffs seek a timely resolution of their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief in order to end the challenged practices and take the position that the following provisions, to which the parties agree, provide significant constitutional protections relating to their claims in the above-styled litigation.
The Judges of the Municipal Court of the City of Montgomery, in their official capacities, while denying liability and in order to promote the efficient and effective operation of the Court, agree to the following which are to be implemented beginning not more than forty-five days after the execution of this agreement:
1. To audio record compliance and indigence hearings (as those hearings are described in the Judicial Procedures attached hereto as Appendix 1) for a period of not less than twenty-four months following the execution of this Agreement.
1 Nothing in this Agreement should be construed to constitute an admission by the Plaintiffs that the City of Montgomery is not liable for the constitutional violations alleged in this case or capable of remedying those violations and providing the relief sought. Similarly, nothing in this agreement should be construed to constitute an admission by the City that it is liable for the same.
2

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 3 of 33
2. To use a microphone when conducting court unless a Party asks that the microphone be turned off and the court finds, after allowing for objections to be made, that to turn the microphone off is appropriate to guard against disclosure of private medical information, information about a minor child, or other sensitive, private information. Use of the microphone pursuant to this Agreement shall be for a period of not less than three years following the execution of this Agreement.
3. To notify Plaintiffs’ Counsel by email within twelve hours of any Municipal Court defendant’s being placed in jail for nonpayment of a fine, costs or restitution (or otherwise placed in jail pursuant to the Plan, including for contempt of court for nonperformance of community service or any other reason stemming from nonpayment or nonperformance of community service in lieu of payment). Said notification would be provided to Alec Karakatsanis at the following email address: alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org. The notification will include the defendant's name, the date of the order jailing the defendant, the case number(s), the name of the attorney representing the defendant, a copy of any written findings, and instructions regarding how to request the recording of the proceeding. The responsibility for providing said notifications will end one hundred and eighty days from the date this Agreement is executed.
4. To permit entry of the public into the courtroom in the event the doors are locked. Specifically, the Court will provide a means for the public to request entry into the courtroom by pressing a button located outside the entrance door to the courtroom which will notify security personnel within the courtroom that a member of the public wishes to enter. Once security inside the courtroom has been established, security personnel will go to the courtroom door and screen the person(s) wishing to enter the courtroom. Admission to the courtroom using this procedure will be granted as promptly as practicable. A sign will be posted at the entrance
3

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 4 of 33
door to the courtroom stating this procedure in large print. The amount of time in which the Municipal Court courtroom doors are locked will be minimized and limited to the time necessary to secure the courtroom, and, if it takes longer than ten minutes to secure the courtroom, and someone is seeking entrance, the Judge or courtroom clerk will call another staff member to open the door. This term will be in place for not less than three years following the execution of this Agreement
5. To train the Public Defenders regarding the requirements and holding of Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983), and Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507 (2011), within thirty days of the execution of this Agreement. The training will be conducted by Shannon Holliday and any designee made by her, and the need to request a Bearden hearing for any person who is subject to being jailed for failure to pay a fine, court costs, or restitution will be fully discussed with the Public Defenders as will the defendants’ rights as implemented under the Judicial Procedures. The training will also emphasize the Public Defenders’ obligation to represent their clients during courtroom proceedings in Municipal Court as described in the Judicial Procedures, to meet with and advise clients prior to any indigence/ability-to-pay hearing and to provide to the client the Public Defender’s name and contact information, if requested, in cases in which clients are incarcerated for failure to pay fines and costs or have a pending contempt proceeding for failure to comply with an order to do community service in lieu of paying fines and costs and to fully inform their clients of their pertinent rights under Alabama law, the United States Constitution, and the new Municipal Court procedures as they relate to the indigence/ability to pay hearings.
To cause the Public Defenders’ contracts to be altered so as to remove the clause referencing the “Fair Trial Tax Fund” by which the Public Defender’s compensation is currently linked to whether enough money is placed in that account, to add a clause requiring the Public
4

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 5 of 33
Defender’s attendance at the training provided by the Municipal Court regarding the general operations of the Court, and to add a clause to the effect that the Public Defenders’ duties in connection with defendants who are incarcerated for failure to pay fines, court costs, or restitution include notifying defendants of applicable appellate rights and assisting them in filing notices of appeal and motions to waive any appellate bond if they wish to claim indigence. This provision shall be in place for not less than three years following the execution of this Agreement.
6. To train the Prosecutors regarding the Judicial Procedures to ensure the proper functioning of the compliance and indigence hearings described in the Judicial Procedures, attached hereto as Appendix 1, and to train the prosecutors regarding the holdings of Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983), and Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507 (2011). Should any new prosecutor be hired within the three year period following the execution of this Agreement, the above-described training will be provided to that newly hired prosecutor.
7. To certify to the jail administrator, whenever a person is ordered to be jailed for nonpayment of costs, fines, or restitution (or otherwise ordered to be jailed in a case involving nonpayment for nonperformance of community service), that the Judicial Procedures have been followed and to make that written certification part of the court file and/or case action summary, and to ensure that both the prosecutor and defense attorney have access to the certification in the court file. This term will be in place for a period of not less than three years following the execution of this Agreement.
8. To agree not to hire, contract with, or otherwise use any private probation company (or any other company profiting from offering payment plans relating to unpaid court fines, costs, and restitution) for a period of not less than three years following the execution of this Agreement.
5

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 6 of 33
9. To comply with the provisions set out in the Judicial Procedures, attached hereto as Appendix 1, for a period of not less than three years following the execution of this Agreement.
10. To designate at least two days within the six months following the execution of this Agreement during which individuals who have outstanding arrest warrants for having failed to appear for compliance hearings, or for initial appearances for scheduled or nonscheduled offenses, or who otherwise owe outstanding payments, can appear at the window of the Municipal Court, receive a compliance hearing date and the formal notice thereof, and clear any warrants related to their nonpayment2 or failure to appear rather than being arrested. These days will be referred to hereinafter as “amnesty days” for the sake of convenience, but the Parties understand that no individual will be relieved of fines, costs or restitution as a result of the provisions of this paragraph, although the Court retains its existing authority to do so on a case by case basis. The amnesty days will be publicized through a press release provided to local media outlets at least seven, but not more than twenty-one, days before the scheduled amnesty days, and news outlets will be permitted to ask questions related thereto at a press conference held during the same period of time subsequent to the publication of the press release. The press release will be posted on the window and front door at the courthouse and on the Municipal Court website. The foregoing provisions of this paragraph notwithstanding, any (a) individuals with outstanding arrest warrants for conduct unrelated to nonpayment and not based on failures to appear for initial appearances or compliance hearings and (b) individuals who were ordered to appear at compliance hearings in connection with matters other than the payment of a fine, court costs, or restitution, may be arrested when they appear for any reason at the window. Counsel for the Plaintiffs will be notified at least
2The Municipal Court Judges and City agree to this provision as written for the sake of settlement but take the position that warrants have not been issued for failure to pay fines, costs, or restitution.
6

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 7 of 33
one week in advance of each amnesty day selected as part of compliance with this agreement. The press release mentioned herein will contain the following sentence: “No person who comes to the court for the Amnesty Day will be jailed for non-payment or for a warrant in a case in which the only outstanding issue is non-payment.”
11. The Judges agree that the obligations set out in this Agreement are binding on their successors in office but only to the extent that said successors fulfill the office of Municipal Court Judge during the relevant time limits set out herein.
THE CITY agrees to the following to be implemented beginning not more than forty-five days after the execution of this Agreement unless otherwise set out herein:
1. To take whatever actions are necessary on its part to accomplish the items to which the Judges of the Municipal Court agreed above.
2. Its jail administrator will not knowingly jail a defendant based on nonpayment of fines, costs, or restitution without the above-referenced certification from the Municipal Court Judge regarding compliance with the Judicial Procedures.
3. To file with within ten days of the execution of this Agreement a motion seeking joinder of the Judges of the Municipal Court of Montgomery, Alabama in their official capacities as Party Defendants in the above-styled action for the sole purpose of filing thereafter a Joint Motion for Entry of Final Declaratory and Injunctive Relief as described below. Said motion for joinder is attached hereto as Appendix 3
PLAINTIFFS each agree to the following: 1. To agree to the entry of a final judgment as to all declaratory and injunctive relief as set out below and further to agree not to amend the Complaint in this action or to bring any
7

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 8 of 33
other action against any Party to this Agreement for any equitable relief which was or could have been sought in the above-styled action.
2. To forego their request for class certification and not hereafter file a Motion for Class Certification.
3. Not to oppose the joinder of the Municipal Court Judges in accordance with the language set out in Appendix 3 hereto.
4. To notify counsel for the Municipal Court Judges and the City immediately upon the discovery of any alleged material breach of the foregoing agreement. This notice shall include the specific nature of said breach, the time and date of said breach, the court personnel involved in the breach, and any other details necessary to identify the case or proceeding in which the said breach occurred to the extent the information is available. Said notice shall be conveyed both through email and telephonically to Shannon Holliday or Bobby Segall at the following telephone number and email addresses: (334) 834-1180, holliday@copelandfranco.com, segall@copelandfranco.com. Plaintiffs will give the Defendants a reasonable opportunity to remedy the alleged breach before seeking relief from the Court.
5. That their heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns will be bound by the terms of this Agreement.
ALL PARTIES agree to the following: 1. To file with the other Parties to the above-styled action a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal of all class certification allegations within ten days of the execution of this Agreement. Said Joint Stipulation of Dismissal is attached hereto as Appendix 2. 2. Once the above-referenced motion to join the judges of the Municipal Court (Appendix 3) is granted, to file within ten days thereof with the other Parties to this action a Joint
8

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 9 of 33

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 10 of 33

Motion for Entry of Final Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, as agreed-upon by the Parties and attached hereto as Appendix 4.
3. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed
to be an original, but all of which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same agreement.
Dated this 3l't dav of October. 2014.

Attorney for Presiding Judge Les Hayesr III,
Judge Darron Hendley, Judge Lloria James, and Judge Milton Westry, in their Official Capacities, and Defendant City of
Montgomery:

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Alec Karakatsanis

Robert D. Segall Shannon L. Holliday

/,lott Stdt6 $ "it.^,'r'^
Matthew Swerdlin
*$|,;o"
Joseph Mitchell McGuire

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 11 of 33
JUDICIAL PROCEDURES OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY FOR
INDIGENT DEFENDANTS AND NONPAYMENT Page 1 of 11
BASIC PREMISES:
1. No defendant will be incarcerated for inability to pay any court-ordered monies, including fines, court costs or restitution. (Rule 26.11, Ala. R. Crim. P.).
2. A Public Defender will represent all defendants not otherwise represented by counsel at all compliance and indigence/ability-to-pay hearings. At said hearings, the judge will require that the Public Defender appear with the Defendant in front of the judge, and the Court will note the Public Defender’s appearance in the record.
3. Procedures involving initial appearances at the window are applicable to those defendants appearing on or before the due date indicated on the Uniform Traffic Ticket and Complaint (“UTTC”).
4. The granting of an initial sixty (60) day review will be afforded to all cases (new and old) as the procedures are implemented.
5. Form One (Payment of Fines and Costs) will be placed on the City of Montgomery website, displayed conspicuously in the Court and Lobby of the Municipal Court, and provided to defendants at their initial appearance if they are provided a compliance hearing along with Form Two (Order for Compliance Review).
6. The Court will use the current Federal Poverty Level (“FPL”) chart when making an indigence determination, and there will be a presumption of indigence when a defendant is at or below 125% of the FPL subject to review of his or her assets.
7. The defendant will fill out an Affidavit of Substantial Hardship (Form C-10A) or any updated version of the same, and the inquiry relative to income and assets will follow from the information provided therein. A public Defender will be available to answer any questions about the form.
8. A defendant at 125% of FPL or below without substantial liquid assets available to pay the fines, costs, fees, or restitution will be deemed indigent. In determining whether a defendant has substantial liquid assets, the Court will not consider up to the first $3,000 in personal property, and up to $5,000 in home equity. A finding of substantial liquid assets cannot be based on the receipt of an Earned Income Tax Credit.
9. An indigent defendant will be given the option of either paying $25.00 a month to pay off his fines, court costs, fees, and restitution or doing community service.
10. The Court retains the discretion to make credibility determinations relative to testimony and evidentiary submissions regarding income and assets and to question defendants relative to the same.
11. The ability of a defendant to pay who is not deemed indigent but who expresses an inability to pay his fines, costs, fees and restitution in full will be based on that defendant’s: (i) disposable income, as reflected in the Affidavit of Substantial Hardship (Form C-10A) and as further clarified by questions raised in the indigence hearing, (ii) the defendant’s assets, and (iii) the defendant’s earning potential.
12. The community service hours’ computation will be based on a minimum of $10 credit for each hour of community service worked. The monthly requirements will be a minimum of eight (8) hours and a maximum of twenty-four (24) hours of community

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 12 of 33
JUDICIAL PROCEDURES OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY FOR
INDIGENT DEFENDANTS AND NONPAYMENT Page 2 of 11
service, provided, however, that the court may order more hours of monthly community service at the request of the defendant. 13. The court record shall contain an explanation of any determination of non‐indigence. 14. The Court or its designee will designate the entity with which the defendant assigned to community service must work, taking into account the needs of the City for community service, the needs of the other entities providing community service opportunities, and the defendant’s needs. 15. Defendants who do not initially pay in full are provided Forms One and Two attached hereto which provide notice regarding the procedures set out herein and defendants’ rights. 16. No person may be incarcerated for nonpayment in any case unless these procedures are followed. 17. The payment of restitution as ordered by the court cannot be satisfied by the performance of community service, unless the restitution is owed to the City. 18. The present language of Rule 19(C)(2) of the Rules of Judicial Administration authorizes an increase in the fine only when there is a failure to appear at the initial appearance (pre-judgment) on the ticket. 19. After an initial ability to pay or indigence determination, a defendant’s ability to pay may be re-assessed at subsequent compliance hearings based on changed circumstances or at the Court’s discretion following the procedures set forth herein. 20. No person unable to pay his or her fines and costs in full will be charged an additional fee for being placed on a payment plan unless affirmatively authorized by law.

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 13 of 33
JUDICIAL PROCEDURES OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY FOR
INDIGENT DEFENDANTS AND NONPAYMENT Page 3 of 11
FIRST COURT APPEARANCE WITH ADJUDICATION OR PLEA OF GUILTY
1. Plea of guilty entered at the window (scheduled offenses only)
a. Obtain signature on Plea of Guilty/Waiver of Rights Form
b. Collection of scheduled fine and court costs
i. If paid in full, close case and issue receipt.
ii. If unable to pay on the same day, the defendant will be given an (approximate) sixty (60) day review by the Court at a compliance hearing (Forms One and Two provided).
2. Plea of guilty entered or adjudicated in Court (scheduled and non‐scheduled offenses)
a. Judge orally receives guilty plea or adjudication of guilt
b. Imposition of Sentence (possible fine, court costs and jail sentence)
i. If it is determined that the conduct for which the defendant has been convicted warrants the imposition of a jail sentence, the sentence shall be carried out as directed by the Court. The imposition of a jail sentence will have nothing to do with a defendant’s inability to pay the fines and court costs.
ii. If able to pay the fine and court costs on the same day, the defendant may be directed to the pay window or otherwise informed how to make payment. The full amount is paid and the case is closed.
iii. If the defendant tells the Court that he or she is unable to pay on the same day, the defendant will be given the following options and/or ordered as follows: placed on a payment plan and given a compliance hearing date; given an approximate sixty (60) day review by the Court at a compliance hearing; given an order to complete community service; or any other disposition deemed just and appropriate at the discretion of the Court, excluding incarceration. (Forms One and Two to be provided)
(a) It will not be a standard practice to hold an indigence /ability-topay hearing at this stage of the proceedings. However, the Court reserves the option to do so and, where the defendant is found indigent, to provide the defendant the option of the minimum payment plan or community service at this stage and to enter an order consistent with the option chosen.

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 14 of 33
JUDICIAL PROCEDURES OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY FOR
INDIGENT DEFENDANTS AND NONPAYMENT Page 4 of 11
COURT APPEARANCE – COMPLIANCE REVIEW DATES
1. If the defendant does not appear (and the defendant has not received a continuance from the Court) a warrant will be issued.
2. The defendant must be given an opportunity to present evidence that the amount allegedly owed is not accurate or is not in fact owed if the Defendant believes that the amount is not correct.
3. If the defendant has not paid in full the Court will inquire as to the reasons for noncompliance, including whether the defendant has an inability to pay the amount then due. During this inquiry the Court will specifically ask questions pertaining to the defendant’s ability or inability to pay the amount owed in full. One of the initial questions asked in connection with the ability to pay inquiry will be “Are you able to pay today?” or words to that effect.
4. If after inquiry by the Court, there is
a. No indication of inability to pay, the defendant may be placed on a payment plan by the Court; given another review date set as a compliance hearing (Forms One and Two provided); sentenced to serve time in jail (but not without an indigence/ability-to-pay hearing described below); or given any other disposition deemed just and appropriate at the discretion of the Court.
b. An indication of inability to pay
i. the defendant will be directed to a Public Defender to assist with the completion of an Affidavit of Substantial Hardship Form and any further paperwork the Court deems necessary;
ii. the Court will then hold a hearing at which the Public Defender will represent the defendant, and the Court will make an indigence/ability to pay determination taking into consideration any testimony, the Affidavit of Substantial Hardship, any other paperwork the Court deems necessary, and any documents submitted by the defendant. The defendant will be permitted to present evidence. If, after questioning (including questioning by the Court) and presentation of evidence, the defendant is
(a) determined to be at or below 125% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), the defendant will be determined to be indigent and unable to pay the fines, fees, court costs, and/or restitution in full at the Compliance Hearing, unless the defendant has substantial liquid assets with which he or she could satisfy the payments. In determining whether a defendant has substantial liquid assets, the Court will not consider up to the first $3,000 in personal property,

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 15 of 33
JUDICIAL PROCEDURES OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY FOR
INDIGENT DEFENDANTS AND NONPAYMENT Page 5 of 11
and up to $5,000 in home equity. A finding of substantial liquid assets cannot be based on the receipt of an Earned Income Tax Credit.
(b) determined to be above 125% of the FPL, the defendant will not receive a presumption of indigence, but the Court will still consider whether the defendant has the ability to pay based on the defendant’s disposable income, liquid assets, and earning potential.
iii. If the defendant is determined to be indigent or otherwise unable to pay the amount owed for fines, fees, court costs, and/or restitution in full as ordered, the Court:
(a) may determine the defendant’s ability to make payments based on that defendant’s: (i) disposable income, as reflected in the Affidavit of Substantial Hardship and any other paperwork required by the Court, and as further clarified by answers to questions posed in the hearing, (ii) the defendant’s assets, and (iii) the defendant’s earning potential; order the defendant to make payments consistent therewith; and schedule a review at another compliance hearing (Forms One and Two provided). However the Court will not order a monthly payment in excess of $25.00 for indigent defendants;
(b) may remit costs and fines;
(c) must (unless fines and costs are remitted in full) provide a defendant deemed indigent or otherwise unable to pay the $25.00 minimum monthly payment, the option to complete community service (if physically able) in lieu of payment of costs and fines and schedule a review at another compliance hearing, provided that: (i) if a defendant who has previously been placed on a payment plan fails to make one or more payments, the Court may order said defendant to complete community service (if physically able) to satisfy his or her debt; and (ii) that community service will not be an option for satisfaction of amounts owed for restitution, unless restitution is owed to the City (Forms One and Two provided); and/or
(c) may order any other remedy deemed just and appropriate at the discretion of the Court, excluding incarceration.
iv. If the defendant is determined in the indigence/ability-to-pay hearing to have had the ability to pay as ordered (including individuals previously placed on a payment plan), the Court may:

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 16 of 33
JUDICIAL PROCEDURES OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY FOR
INDIGENT DEFENDANTS AND NONPAYMENT Page 6 of 11
(a) place the defendant on a payment plan or modify the existing payment plan and schedule a review at another compliance hearing in approximately sixty days (60) (Forms One and Two provided);
(b) give the defendant another review date set as a compliance hearing (Forms One and Two provided);
(c) order the defendant to complete community service (if physically able) in lieu of payment of costs and fines and schedule a review at another compliance hearing (Forms One and Two provided);
(d) remit costs and fines;
(e) order the defendant to serve jail time with fines and costs reduced per day at an amount no less than that allowed by Ala. R. Crim. P. 26.11 (Public Defender present unless otherwise represented) if there is a finding of willful nonpayment provided that the days to which the defendant is sentenced do not exceed the number of days required to work off the amount then currently due and owing; and/or
(f) provide any other disposition deemed just and appropriate at the discretion of the Court.
5. If the defendant was ordered to do community service in lieu of paying, the Court may, upon the defendant’s failure to comply, set a contempt hearing to determine if the defendant should be sanctioned. The Court will comply with the requirements of Ala. R. Crim. P. 33, including, but not limited to, providing notice, hearing, and written findings. The Court will remit additional fines and costs associated with any contempt conviction and will remit the original fines, fees, and costs in connection with any jail sentence given for contempt at the same rate as that provided defendants jailed pursuant to Ala. R. Crim. P. 26.11.

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 17 of 33
JUDICIAL PROCEDURES OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY FOR
INDIGENT DEFENDANTS AND NONPAYMENT Page 7 of 11
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURES
In addition, the Judges of the Court will:
1. provide notice of a compliance hearing, as set out in these procedures, to all defendants on a Judicial Correction Services payment plan or contract as of June 2014;
2. treat probationers as set out in the above procedures if and when probation is subject to revocation for nonpayment of fines, costs, fees or restitution;
3. treat those who are currently on payment plans as set out in the above procedures;
4. have the Public Defender inform any defendant not otherwise represented by counsel of his or her appellate rights and provide said defendant Form 3 should he or she be sentenced to jail for failure to pay fines, costs, fees or restitution;
5. instruct the clerks to provide defendants who have failed to appear as required by their UTTC (uniform traffic ticket and complaint) with a license reinstatement letter (if the Court has notified the Alabama Department of Public Safety of the failure to appear) upon the defendant’s first voluntary appearance at a compliance hearing or upon full payment of costs, fines, fees or restitution, whichever occurs first; and
6. permit a defendant who has failed to appear at his or her initial appearance date for a scheduled traffic offense and who is subject to an arrest warrant for the same, to appear at the window at the Court and not be arrested on that warrant but instead to be provided a compliance hearing date; and
7. instruct the clerks that no warrant for failure to appear shall be confirmed unless it is supported in the Court’s file by notification from the Court or notification in a charging instrument which notification provides a specific date and time for a court hearing.

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 18 of 33
JUDICIAL PROCEDURES OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY FOR
INDIGENT DEFENDANTS AND NONPAYMENT Page 8 of 11

FORM ONE

Payment of Fines and Costs

If at any time you cannot pay your fines and costs as ordered by the Court, you may go before the Court at your Compliance Hearing to discuss your financial situation, to ask that the Court’s Order be changed (for example, to ask that you pay less) and/or to explain why you are unable to pay. The time and date of your Compliance Hearing before the Court will be provided to you in a Court Order given to you.

If you indicate that you are unable to pay your fines and costs, the Court will order you to complete an Affidavit of Substantial Hardship and other forms as deemed necessary, and may inquire about your finances, to include but not be limited to: income, expenses (i.e. rent, childcare, utilities, food, clothing, medical condition/bills, transportation, etc.), bank accounts, and other assets. In some circumstances, the Court may also inquire about your efforts to obtain the money to pay, including your job skills and efforts to apply for jobs. You should present any documents that you have to the Court during this inquiry. If you cannot afford an attorney, the Court will provide a Public Defender to represent you.

Based on your income, you may be ordered to perform community service or be placed on a monthly payment plan. You will be given a Compliance Hearing date to return to Court for the Judge to review your particular case(s). Your appearance at this Compliance Hearing is mandatory.

You cannot be put in jail solely for your inability to pay your fines and costs, or for nonperformance of community service, unless you willfully failed to pay or to perform the community service ordered despite having the ability to do so.

You may pay the full amount you owe at any time in accordance with the Court’s Order, and at that point you will not have to continue to make payments, finish your community service, or appear at your next scheduled Compliance Hearing. You may contact the Court or inquire at a Municipal Court pay window if you would like to obtain your balance owed.

If the Court determines that you have a disability, illness, or other circumstances that would prevent you from performing community service, you will not be required to perform community service.

In summary, after you have been ordered by the Court to pay your fines and court costs or to perform community service, you will be given a Compliance Hearing date to come back to Court to review your case(s). This hearing is mandatory. Even if you are unable to pay all of your fines and costs or complete the hours ordered before that date, you must attend. At this Hearing, you will have the opportunity to explain to the Court why you have not complied with the Court’s Order(s) and present evidence. You could be put in jail only if the Court determines that you willfully violated the Court’s Order. If you do not appear at your Compliance Hearing, a warrant will be issued for your arrest.

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 19 of 33
JUDICIAL PROCEDURES OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY FOR
INDIGENT DEFENDANTS AND NONPAYMENT Page 9 of 11

FORM TWO

Municipal Court City of Montgomery 320 North Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104

ORDER SETTING HEARING FOR COMPLIANCE REVIEW
IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA MUNICIPALITY OF MONTGOMERY V. ADULT NWS TEST JR, DEFENDANT

To the Defendant of the Case listed below:

Case#

Officer

1999CRA999999

Jane Roe

THEFT OF PROPERTY 3

Attorney

Balance Due $332.00

Court Date-Hearing Friday, August 31, 2012 8:00 am

If your address changes, you shall provide notification to the court immediately.

You must attend the court hearing on the date and time referenced above unless you have paid in full your fines and court costs or completed and submitted proof of completed community service.

Your ability to pay is a critical issue in this hearing. If you are unable due to no fault of your own to pay the court costs and fines or to perform community service as ordered by the Court by the above referenced date, you may testify at this hearing and should bring with you any records to help explain the reasons for your nonpayment or nonperformance to include, but not limited to, pay stubs, utility bills, expenses, federal and state tax returns, medical bills, documents evidencing any medical condition, any evidence of efforts to gain employment, etc. If you cannot afford an attorney, a Public Defender will be provided to assist and represent you.

If, at the time of the hearing, you have failed to pay the full court costs, fines, fees or restitution ordered by the Court or have failed to meet the requirements of your payment plan, you may be sentenced to jail after the hearing for failure to pay, but only if you are found to have had the ability to pay. If you have previously been ordered to perform community service and have failed to perform community service as ordered by the Court and are found to have had the ability to do so, you may be held in contempt of court only after notice and a hearing.

If you are on probation, your probation can also be revoked and you may be jailed for failing to comply with the other terms of your probation.

If you believe the “Balance Due” amount is incorrect, you may request a balance history (both fines/fees/costs added and payments received) from a Clerk at the Window in the Municipal Court. If you still believe the “Balance Due” amount is incorrect you may discuss it with the

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 20 of 33
JUDICIAL PROCEDURES OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY FOR
INDIGENT DEFENDANTS AND NONPAYMENT Page 10 of 11
Clerk at the Window. You may also discuss it with the Public Defender, and raise it with the Judge.
IF YOU FAIL TO ATTEND COURT ON THE DATE REFERENCED ABOVE, A WARRANT WILL BE ISSUED AND ADDITIONAL CHARGES MAY BE INITIATED.

May 22, 2012

_______________________ Municipal Court Judge

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 21 of 33
JUDICIAL PROCEDURES OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY FOR
INDIGENT DEFENDANTS AND NONPAYMENT Page 11 of 11
FORM THREE
Notice of Appeal Rights
You have a right to appeal the decision of the Montgomery Municipal Court. If you file an appeal, the Montgomery County Circuit Court will review your case.
Under Alabama law, you have 14 days from the date of your trial/hearing in which to file your appeal. If you wish to file an appeal, you should tell your Municipal Court attorney or the public defender that you wish to file an appeal and you may speak to the Public Defender about how to do so.
When you file an appeal, you ordinarily must file an appeal bond. The amount of the appeal bond varies, depending upon the particular offense. If you cannot afford the cost of an appeal bond, you have a right to have a hearing before the judge for the judge to decide if you do not have to file an appeal bond and can file your appeal for free. You must fill out an affidavit of substantial hardship if you have not already done so.
If you are in jail and file an appeal, you will be released from jail once your appeal bond is posted with the court or when the Court determines that no bond is required.

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 22 of 33

APPENDIX 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

SHARNALLE MITCHELL, LORENZO

)

BROWN, TITO WILLIAMS, COURTNEY )

TUBBS, TEQUILA BALLARD, WILLIE

)

WILLIAMS, THOMAS ELLIS, GAVIN

)

BULLOCK, KENDRICK MAUL, TAMARA )

DUDLEY, JERMAINE TYLER, JANET

)

EDWARDS, RISKO MCDANIEL, DEMETRI )

COLVIN, CARL WILLIAMS, RAYSHONE )

WILLIAMS,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

CITY OF MONTGOMERY,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. 2:14-cv-186

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND ALL REQUESTS FOR CLASS-WIDE RELIEF
COME NOW, the Parties to the above-styled action and stipulate to the dismissal of all

portions of the First Amended Class Action Complaint (Doc. 26) in this case which seek class-

wide relief. To the extent that the Plaintiffs seek class-wide relief in connection with any count

pled in the First Amended Class Action Complaint (Doc. 26), the Parties stipulate that the

Plaintiffs’ request for class-wide relief is dismissed with prejudice. The parties therefore stipulate

and agree that the Plaintiffs will not hereafter file a Motion for Class Certification.

11

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 23 of 33
s/Shannon L. Holliday Robert D. Segall (ASB-7354-E68R) Shannon L. Holliday (ASB-5440-Y77S) Copeland Franco Screws & Gill, P.A. Post Office Box 347 Montgomery, AL 36101-0347 Telephone: (334) 834-1180 Email: holliday@copelandfranco.com Email: segall@copelandfranco.com
Stephanie L. Smithee (ASB-8497-T82S) City of Montgomery Legal Department Post Office Box 1111 Montgomery, Alabama 36101-1111 Telephone: (334) 625-2050 ssmithee@montgomeryal.gov
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CITY OF MONTGOMERY
s/Alec Karakatsanis Alec Karakatsanis, Esq. (D.C. Bar No. 999294) Admitted Pro Hac Vice Equal Justice Under Law 916 G Street, NW, Suite 701 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: 202-681-2409 Email: alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org
Matthew Swerdlin P.O. Box 550206 Birmingham, AL 35255 Telephone: (205) 795-3517 Email: matt@attorneyswerdlin.com
Joseph Mitchell McGuire 31 Clayton Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 517-1000 Email: jmcguire@mandabusinesslaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
12

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 24 of 33

APPENDIX 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

SHARNALLE MITCHELL, LORENZO

)

BROWN, TITO WILLIAMS, COURTNEY )

TUBBS, TEQUILA BALLARD, WILLIE

)

WILLIAMS, THOMAS ELLIS, GAVIN

)

BULLOCK, KENDRICK MAUL, TAMARA )

DUDLEY, JERMAINE TYLER, JANET

)

EDWARDS, RISKO MCDANIEL, DEMETRI )

COLVIN, CARL WILLIAMS, RAYSHONE )

WILLIAMS,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

CITY OF MONTGOMERY,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. 2:14-cv-186

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR JOINDER OF PARTIES

COMES NOW Defendant, City of Montgomery, in the above-styled matter and moves this Honorable Court to join the Judges of the Municipal Court of the City of Montgomery in their official capacities as Parties to this action pursuant to Rule 19, Fed. R. Civ. P, and/or Rule 20, Fed. R. Civ. P. As grounds therefor, the City shows the following:
1. The Judges of the Municipal Court of Montgomery, Alabama include the following persons: Presiding Judge Les Hayes, III, Judge Milton Westry, Judge Darron Hendley, and Judge Lloria James (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Judges of the Municipal Court,” or “the Judges”).
2. The current Parties to this action along with the Judges of the Municipal Court of Montgomery Alabama, in their official capacities, have entered into an agreement entitled

13

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 25 of 33
Agreement to Settle Injunctive and Declaratory Relief Claims (hereinafter “Settlement Agreement”)which settles all matters relative to the declaratory and injunctive relief requested by the Plaintiffs in this action.
3. The Judges of the Municipal Court in their official capacities will be providing relief to the Plaintiffs as agreed upon in the Settlement Agreement.
4. The Plaintiffs in this case further seek this Court’s continued jurisdiction over the equitable relief agreed upon by the Parties including the Municipal Court Judges, as set out in the Settlement Agreement.
5. It is the City’s understanding and as represented in the Agreement attached hereto and signed by the Municipal Court Judges of the City of Montgomery, that the Municipal Court Judges of the City of Montgomery, in the interests of promoting the efficient and effective operation of the Court, and further promoting the resolution of the lawsuit and thereby any potential proceedings which might be brought against them in the future, have agreed to joinder in their official capacities. They have agreed to joinder for this limited purpose and do not intend, in doing so, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, to waive any potential immunity to claims for damages, attorneys’ fees, or any other relief, including other equitable relief, nor do they intend to waive any other defenses. The Judges join for the sole purpose of filing hereafter with the other Parties to this action a Joint Motion for Entry of Final Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
6. For the entirety of the equitable relief negotiated and agreed to by the parties in the Settlement Agreement to be afforded, it is necessary that the Judges of the Municipal Court of the City of Montgomery be joined in their official capacities as Party Defendants to this action for the sole purpose of making them subject to the jurisdiction of this Court relative to this Court’s equitable jurisdiction over the Settlement Agreement.
14

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 26 of 33
7. This basis for seeking joinder is consistent with the requirements of Rules 19 and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
8. Rule 19(a)(1) provides that “[a] person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if: (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.”
9. With respect to Rule 19, the Settlement Agreement between the Parties is such that without joinder of the Municipal Court Judges in their official capacities Plaintiffs cannot obtain the full constellation of negotiated equitable relief. See Rule 19(a)(1)(A).
10. Furthermore, the Municipal Court Judges in their official capacities have an interest relating to the subject matter of this lawsuit (specifically the request for equitable relief) such that it is in their interest to control the nature of any resolution of this matter involving the operations of the Municipal Court. For that reason, it was in their interest to take part in the negotiations between the Parties and to agree to the specific relief set out in the Settlement Agreement. See Rule 10(a)(1)(B)(i).
11. Rule 20 provides that “persons … may be joined in one action as defendants if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.”
15

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 27 of 33
12. With respect to Rule 20, permissive joinder is appropriate because the relief which the Plaintiffs request arises, in part, out of the same transactions, i.e., hearings held before the Municipal Court, and the parties have agreed to a negotiated settlement which involves the agreement of the Judges of the Municipal Court to take certain actions.
13. Joinder as Defendants for the purpose of entering into the Settlement Agreement is the most efficient manner in which the equitable relief agreed to by the parties in this action can be resolved.
14. Furthermore, joinder for the purpose of settling civil rights actions that implicate and involve multiple parties is appropriate under Rule 19. See, e.g., Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755 (U.S. 1989), abrogated by statute as the holding applies to Title VII as recognized in, Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 251 (U.S. 1994).
15. Once joinder is granted, the Parties collectively intend immediately to file a Joint Motion for Entry of Final Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
16. As set forth in the Agreement to settle the Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, nothing in that Agreement or in this Motion should be construed as an admission by the City of Montgomery that it is liable for the constitutional claims alleged in this case or by the Plaintiffs that the City of Montgomery is not liable for the constitutional claims alleged in this case.
17. Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion to the extent it seeks permissive joinder under Rule 20.
WHEREFORE, the City asks this Court to join the Judges of the Municipal Court as Party Defendants in this action for the limited purposes set out above.
16

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 28 of 33

s/Shannon L. Holliday Robert D. Segall (ASB-7354-E68R) Shannon L. Holliday (ASB-5440-Y77S) Copeland Franco Screws & Gill, P.A. Post Office Box 347 Montgomery, AL 36101-0347 Email: holliday@copelandfranco.com Email: segall@copelandfranco.com Phone: (334) 834-1180 Facsimile: (334) 834-3171

Stephanie L. Smithee (ASB-8497-T82S) City of Montgomery Legal Department Post Office Box 1111 Montgomery, Alabama 36101-1111 Telephone: (334) 625-2050 Facsimile: (334) 625-2310 Email: ssmithee@montgomeryal.gov

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CITY OF MONTGOMERY

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 31st day of October, 2014, I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification to the following counsel of record:

Alec Karakatsanis, Esq. Equal Justice Under Law 916 G Street, NW, Suite 701 Washington, DC 20001

Joseph Mitchell McGuire 31 Clayton Street Montgomery, AL 36104

Matthew Swerdlin, Esq. 1736 Oxmoor Road Suite 101 Homewood, AL 35209

s/Shannon L. Holliday Of Counsel

17

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 29 of 33

APPENDIX 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

SHARNALLE MITCHELL, LORENZO

)

BROWN, TITO WILLIAMS, COURTNEY )

TUBBS, TEQUILA BALLARD, WILLIE

)

WILLIAMS, THOMAS ELLIS, GAVIN

)

BULLOCK, KENDRICK MAUL, TAMARA )

DUDLEY, JERMAINE TYLER, JANET

)

EDWARDS, RISKO MCDANIEL, DEMETRI )

COLVIN, CARL WILLIAMS, RAYSHONE )

WILLIAMS,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

CITY OF MONTGOMERY,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. 2:14-cv-186

JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

COME NOW the Parties, including the Municipal Court Judges in their official capacity

in connection with whom an uncontested motion for joinder is pending, and move this Court for

entry of the attached Order. As grounds therefor, the Parties show the following:

1. The Parties have resolved all disputes regarding declaratory and injunctive relief

sought by the Plaintiffs in the above-styled action by agreeing to seek entry of the Order attached

hereto as Exhibit 1.

2. The Parties have agreed to the continued jurisdiction of this Court for the periods

set out in the Agreement to Settle Declaratory and Injunctive Claims (“Settlement Agreement”)

attached as Exhibit A to Exhibit 1 for enforcement of the particular terms of the Agreement.

18

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 30 of 33 WHEREFORE, the Parties hereto request entry of the Order attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

s/Shannon L. Holliday Robert D. Segall (ASB-7354-E68R) Shannon L. Holliday (ASB-5440-Y77S) Copeland Franco Screws & Gill, P.A. Post Office Box 347 Montgomery, AL 36101-0347 Telephone: (334) 834-1180 Facsimile: (334) 834-3171 Email: holliday@copelandfranco.com Email: segall@copelandfranco.com
Stephanie L. Smithee (ASB-8497-T82S) City of Montgomery Legal Department Post Office Box 1111 Montgomery, Alabama 36101-1111 Telephone: (334) 625-2050 Email: ssmithee@montgomeryal.gov
ATTORNEYS FOR PRESIDING JUDGE LES HAYES, III, JUDGE DARRON HENDLEY, JUDGE LLORIA JAMES, AND JUDGE MILTON WESTRY, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, AND DEFENDANT CITY OF MONTGOMERY

s/Alec Karakatsanis Alec Karakatsanis, Esq. (D.C. Bar No. 999294) Admitted Pro Hac Vice Equal Justice Under Law 916 G Street, NW, Suite 701 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: 202-681-2409 Email: alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org
Matthew Swerdlin P.O. Box 550206 Birmingham, AL 35255 Telephone: (205) 795-3517 Email: matt@attorneyswerdlin.com
Joseph Mitchell McGuire 31 Clayton Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 517-1000 Email: jmcguire@mandabusinesslaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

19

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 31 of 33

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 32 of 33 3. Plaintiffs are instructed to notify this Court of any material breaches of the
Settlement Agreement after making full attempts to resolve the dispute with the Parties as set out in the Settlement Agreement.
_____________________________ District Judge
21

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 51-1 Filed 11/17/14 Page 33 of 33 EXHIBIT A – TO EXHIBIT 1 TO JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [The Parties agree that the entire Settlement Agreement with its appendices will constitute this exhibit and that it need not be reproduced here.]
22

 
 Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

)

SHARNALLE MITCHELL, et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al, )

)

Defendants.

)

___________________________________ )

Case No. 2: 14-cv-186-MHT

NOTICE OF WILLFUL VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER

The Complaint in this case described the modern debtors’ prison run by the City of

Montgomery. See Doc. 26 & Exhibits 1-34. The conduct of the City and its employees, agents,

and judges prior to the filing of this lawsuit was disgraceful.

Although this Court entered an order on November 17, 2014, requiring the City and four

of its municipal judges to refrain from jailing people because of their poverty and to take a

number of actions to ensure that such conduct did not occur again, the City and at least one of its

judges have recently committed flagrant and repeated violations of this Court’s order.

The Plaintiffs continue to conduct an investigation with the assistance of counsel for the

City and may seek limited court-ordered discovery prior to making a decision concerning

whether to file a Motion to Show Cause Why the Defendants Should Not Be Held in Civil

Contempt if the Plaintiffs are unable to obtain the relevant information from the Defendants.

Nonetheless, as explained infra, the Plaintiffs file this Notice pursuant to their obligation as

officers of the Court to notify this Court of the willful violation of its order so that the Court can

take whatever action it deems appropriate, if any, under Fed. R. Crim. P. 42.

II. Background

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 2 of 12
A. The Old System For years, in assembly line fashion, the City of Montgomery locked human beings in cages to sit out their debts, solely because they were poor and without any of the process required by federal and state law. The City made millions of dollars in profits by demanding payment from desperate family and friends, threatening them that their loved ones would be jailed and kept in jail if they did not bring money down to the clerk’s office immediately. Once locked in jail, debtors who could not pay that ransom or who did not know anyone who could pay it for them were coerced into performing janitorial labor for the City to “work off” their debts. But see 18 U.S.C. § 1589 (making it a federal felony to obtain labor through the threat of physical restraint). The scheme was an assault on the United States Constitution and on the basic humanity of the City’s poor. See generally, Doc. 26. B. The Preliminary Injunction On May 1, 2014, this Court heard uncontroverted evidence that the City of Montgomery had been jailing some of its poorest people for debts to the City without providing any of the simple process that the United States Constitution and Alabama law require.1 Judge Fuller issued an order granting preliminary injunctive relief to protect three of the initial Plaintiffs from further unlawful treatment by the City until the City could demonstrate a debt-collection plan that complied with the law. See Doc. 18. He also ordered City officials to appear in person before this Court to explain the City’s policies and procedures. Id. Almost immediately after this Court’s clear statement to the City, the City resumed the same unlawful conduct. In the days after the May 1 order of this Court, the City repeatedly
1 Three of the Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief based on the City’s failure to conduct any inquiry into their ability to pay prior to jailing them for non-payment. See Doc. 2. After a Response by the City defending its policies and practices, Doc. 14,1 a Reply by the Plaintiffs, Doc. 15, and oral argument before this Court on May 1, 2014, Judge Fuller found that the City’s failure to conduct such an inquiry or consider alternatives to incarceration prior to jailing the Plaintiffs likely violated their constitutional rights and threatened them with irreparable harm. See Doc. 18.
2

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 3 of 12
locked in its jail impoverished people for debts in proceedings that continued to violate Bearden,
Turner, Tucker, Rule 26.11, and the spirit of this Court’s oral statements and written order. See
generally Doc. 2 (citing cases); Doc. 15 (same). The City again forced people to “sit out” their
debts at the City’s rate of $50 per day without any inquiry into their ability to pay. In short,
nothing changed. While this Court’s initial Order pertained only to Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Brown,
and Mr. Williams, the City’s return to practices that this Court condemned just days after this
Court condemned them was, at best, a troubling reflection of the City’s indifference to the law.
After this Court’s preliminary injunction ruling, the Plaintiffs repeatedly requested that
the City cease its unconstitutional behavior. For weeks, the City refused.2 Indeed, a City
prosecutor declared in municipal court that he had not read Bearden, had not read Turner, and
that he did not intend to. See Doc. 34 at 5.3 Ultimately, after the City hired outside counsel, it
2 At a hearing on this matter, the Plaintiffs would offer proof of the following examples: This Court issued its Order on the evening of Thursday, May 1, 2014. Two business days later, on Monday May 5, 2014, while obtaining records from a window clerk at the City court, a representative of the Plaintiffs overheard a different window clerk telling a woman that, if she did not bring nearly $200 to the court the next day, the City would jail her. (In subsequent proceedings, counsel for the Plaintiffs represented the woman pro bono, and she was found to be indigent.) This conversation led to an immediate investigation after which the Plaintiffs learned that a number of people had been jailed by the City in cursory proceedings without any Bearden inquiry that morning. The proceedings were materially indistinguishable from the proceedings described in the Preliminary Injunction hearing: no inquiry was made into the inmates’ ability to pay or alternatives to incarceration before they were jailed. Indeed, in a cruel twist, the City judge affirmatively cut off inmates when inmates tried to explain their poverty, refusing to let them be heard even on that basic question and jailing them immediately for non-payment. Four of the people illegally jailed by the City that morning became named Plaintiffs in this case: Kendrick Maull, Tamara Dudley, Demetri Colvin, and Risko McDaniel
The City judge then told relatives of those inmates that the person would not be released from City jail unless the relatives could produce enough money to pay some of their debts. But see Doc. 15 at 19 n.14 (citing cases holding such a practice unlawful). Each person was returned to the jail immediately when the relatives stated that they also did not have enough money to satisfy the City. Mr. Maull’s family was so frightened that he would not survive in the City jail with inmates who had actually committed crimes, that they raised enough money from multiple family members to get him released that night, on his second day in jail. Ms. Dudley was not so lucky— her family was so impoverished that it could not raise enough money to release her. She was held until counsel for the Plaintiffs secured her release later in the week by filling a Notice of Appeal in forma pauperis—a request that was actually granted after counsel submitted the standard state-issued Affidavit of Substantial Hardship describing her indigence. Ironically, as soon as the City bothered to examine her circumstances, Ms. Dudley was found unable to pay the costs of an appeal (as was Mr. Colvin), and she was therefore released pending her appeal of the order jailing her. 3 Perhaps even more troubling are the events of May 6, 2014. On that date, the City convened hearings to reconsider the jailing of named Plaintiffs Tequila Ballard and Thomas Ellis at the request of undersigned counsel. Ms. Ballard, a single mother of four children living in poverty, was ordered by the City to serve 99 days in the City jail for non-
3

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 4 of 12

released several dozen debtors from its jail on a single day in May 2014 and promised in writing

to cease jailing people until it had submitted new procedures to be approved by this Court.

C. The November 17 Order

.

On November 17, 2014, after the parties had negotiated a new set of procedures to be

implemented to guard against the abuses that pervaded the City’s scheme, this Court issued an

order requiring the City to comply with those procedures. Doc. 51; Doc. 51-1.

Among other important procedures in the settlement agreement, the City was ordered to

comply with the following provisions:

payment of debts from traffic tickets. The City made no inquiry into her ability to pay prior to jailing her in a cursory hearing at which she was not represented by an attorney. She had been languishing in the City jail since March 22, 2014. See Doc. 26 at 11. Mr. Ellis, a 57-year-old disabled stroke victim, was similarly jailed without any inquiry into his ability to pay and had been confined in the City jail for non-payment of debts since April 17, 2014. See Doc. 26 at 12.
Counsel had alerted the City Attorney’s office to the unlawful jailing and continued illegal detention of Tequila Ballard and Thomas Ellis over two weeks prior to May 6, but the City continued to confine them. After this Court’s preliminary injunction ruling, when the City finally set their cases for a reconsideration hearing, the result was a highly irregular legal proceeding.
The City prosecutor (who is a private attorney contracted by the City to pursue debt collection and other cases in City court) refused to explain, prior to Ms. Ballard’s hearing, why the City sought to keep her in jail at the hearing and why he had declared that Ms. Ballard was “not indigent” even though she clearly fell significantly below state statutory indigency standards. At the hearing, the City judge refused to let Ms. Ballard put on evidence with respect to her indigence or ability to pay. She was returned to the City jail having not even been given the opportunity to establish her inability to pay—the critical legal question that necessitated the hearing in the first place—or to be heard on any other relevant issue. By that point, she had spent 45 days in the City’s jail away from her four children, one of whom is disabled and all of whom depended on her.
Mr. Ellis, whose only income was his disability benefits, appeared after Ms. Ballard. Mr. Ellis has difficulty talking and being understood since his stroke, and he was clearly out of sorts and confused in the courtroom on May 6. He did not know what day or what month it was, and he could not remember when he had been put in the City jail. He repeatedly stammered and slurred his words. The City prosecutor frequently smiled to the courtroom audience and mocked Mr. Ellis’s confusion over what day it was and how long he had been jailed. Mr. Ellis was visibly uncomfortable and disoriented, turning away from the prosecutor and shielding his face. At one point during this humiliation, Mr. Ellis reported that his rent expenses were lower than had been stated on the Affidavit of Substantial Hardship filled out by counsel while Mr. Ellis was handcuffed at the City jail. Instead of exploring the situation, examining Mr. Ellis’s circumstances, or making any findings concerning ability to pay given that Mr. Ellis survived on disability income, the City ordered Mr. Ellis returned to the jail to continue serving out his debts. He had been sitting in the City jail for 19 days at that point. It was after that hearing that the City prosecutor announced that he had not read the Supreme Court decisions of Bearden v. Georgia and Turner v. Rogers and that he “[did not] intend to.”
After the hearings on May 6, 2014, counsel for the Plaintiffs notified the City Attorney of the Plaintiffs’ intent to take further action to obtain the immediate release of Ms. Ballard and Mr. Ellis given what had occurred in the City courtroom on May 6. The next day, the City “sua sponte” released each of them along with an order for them to make monthly payments of $50 per month beginning June 1, 2014.
4

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 5 of 12
 “No defendant will be incarcerated for inability to pay any court-ordered monies, including fines, court costs or restitution.” Doc. 51-1 at 11.
 “No person may be incarcerated for nonpayment in any case unless these procedures are followed.” Doc. 51-1 at 12.
 “If the defendant has not paid in full the Court will inquire as to the reasons for noncompliance, including whether the defendant has an inability to pay the amount then due.” Doc. 51-1 at 14.
 Any defendant unable to pay on the date of adjudication “will be given” a variety of options “excluding” being jailed for nonpayment. Doc. 51-1 at 13.
 “A Public Defender will represent all defendants not otherwise represented by counsel at all compliance and indigence/ability-to-pay hearings. At said hearings, the judge will require that the Public Defender appear with the Defendant in front of the judge, and the Court will note the Public Defender’s appearance in the record.” Doc. 51-1 at 11.
 The judge shall “have the Public Defender inform any defendant not otherwise represented by counsel of his or her appellate rights and provide said defendant Form 3 should he or she be sentenced to jail for failure to pay fines, costs, fees or restitution.” Doc. 51-1 at 17.
 To audio record all indigence and compliance hearings at which a person’s ability to pay is determined.
 To keep the courtroom unlocked and open except in the even that it is “necessary” to “secure” the courtroom to keep the doors locked for a limited period of time not to exceed 10 minutes. Doc. 51 at ¶ 4.
 “To notify Plaintiffs’ Counsel by email within twelve hours of any Municipal Court defendant’s being placed in jail for nonpayment of a fine, costs or restitution.” Doc. 51-1 at 3.
All of these procedures were designed to prevent the City from again jailing a person
because he or she could not make a payment and to enable efficient monitoring of the City’s
compliance with that order.
III. The March 13, 2015, Violations of this Court’s Order
On March 13, 2015, a group of more than 10 people arrived at the City municipal court
shortly after 8:00 a.m. The group was met by a City police officer. The officer informed the
group that they were late, that the courtroom was locked, that they would not be allowed entry to
the courtroom, and that they would be fined $50. The officer then informed the group of
individuals that they would be jailed for a day if they did not have $50 to pay the City. Then,
5

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 6 of 12
without an attorney present, the officer ordered the people to sign a piece of paper purporting to admit to the late time that they had arrived.
The officer then refused to allow the people entry into the courtroom. After some time, at approximately 8:30 a.m. and about 15 minutes after many of them had arrived, the officer unlocked the door and let them into the courtroom. A different courtroom bailiff told the group that they would have to pay $50 or be jailed for one night if they did not have the money.
Judge Darron Hendley then ordered the group to stand near a wall and assessed $50 fines to the individuals in summary fashion one person at a time. No formal process was followed prior to the assessment of what the group was told was a “fine.” Judge Hendley then jailed at least two of these people when they could not immediately pay the $50 fine. None of them was appointed a lawyer.4
Counsel for the Plaintiffs was alerted to the situation through one of the members of the group threatened by City officers with jail if they could not pay. This person was known to City employees as a person involved in federal court litigation against the City relating to these issues. Instead of being fined and jailed as the City officers had done to other individuals in the group, that person was removed from the courtroom and told that she had been in that line against the wall as a mistake.
After an urgent inquiry by undersigned counsel, counsel for Judge Hendley and counsel for the City investigated the situation and admitted in writing that two people were taken into City custody when they could not immediately pay $50 and that no indigence or ability to pay hearing was conducted to determine whether the individuals could pay what appears to have
4 None of those fined or taken into custody when they could not pay were informed of their appellate rights after conviction as required by the Court order.
6

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 7 of 12
been the issuance of a summary fine for criminal contempt.5 The Defendants also admitted that no attorney was provided for those jailed. The Defendants represented that Judge Hendley was the only City judge who had engaged in that behavior. The Defendants took what they describe as immediate action to release from custody the sole person who remained confined. The Defendants have assured the Plaintiffs that they have changed their policies and have promised that no one will be jailed again in the future for the inability to pay a $50 fine. Of course, that is the promise that the Plaintiffs had already secured with the entry of this Court’s order.
Counsel for the Defendants subsequently provided to undersigned counsel the names of 23 individuals fined and threatened with jail by Judge Hendley pursuant to his policy on various occasions since the entry of this Court’s order, as well as and the names of the two people taken into custody on March 13. The City has also agreed to refund their fines, and Judge Hendley has resigned to be effective within 90 days.
However, a number of other questions remain concerning how this could have happened on numerous occasions and regarding the City’s policies and practices surrounding the March 13 incident or similar incidents, including how many people have been subjected to such unlawful summary contempt proceedings (the City has also now admitted that many other people are routinely being found in criminal contempt by the other City judges on a daily basis for being late without following any of the procedures required my Alabama and federal law, see supra
5 Judge Hendley’s conduct violates state and federal law mandating due process prior to findings of criminal contempt. The Defendants argued to undersigned counsel that Judge Hendley was adjudicating the people for criminal contempt pursuant to his “inherent authority” to hold them in contempt for violating a court order to arrive at 8:00 a.m., although he followed none of the statutory or constitutional provisions required in criminal contempt cases. See Ala. R. Crim. Pro. 33.1; 33.3; Ala. Code § 12-14-31; see also, e.g., United States v. KS & W Offshore Eng'g, Inc., 932 F.2d 906, 909-10 (11th Cir. 1991) (reversing contempt judgment for a lawyer who arrived late to court and holding that the use of summary contempt procedures for late arrivals was not appropriate and that such procedures are reserved for contumacious conduct observed by a judge in the courtroom).
7

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 8 of 12
note 5), threatened with jail for non-payment by City officers and bailiffs, barred from the courtroom, and denied counsel.
Indeed, after representing for over two weeks that the above-related events constituted the extent of their unlawful behavior, counsel for the Defendants informed counsel for the Plaintiffs in writing on the eve of the Plaintiffs filing this Notice to alert this Court about the March 13 violations that Judge Hendley and City officers had openly enforced this policy since at least December 30, 2014, and that Defendant Hendley and City employees had taken into custody at least four additional people when they could not afford to pay a $50 fine for being late that had been summarily imposed. The Defendants therefore admitted that the misconduct in violation of the Court order had been occurring for four months, and the Defendants violated the Court order to notify undersigned counsel within 12 hours of any person being jailed for nonpayment and to provide a certification to the City jail administrator that the federal court order had been complied with prior to jailing. Counsel for the Plaintiffs has not yet been provided the names or contact information for these additional individuals but expects to receive that information.
In all, the Defendants have now admitted in writing to violating this Court’s order in numerous ways on multiple occasions, including by taking into custody six human beings when they could not afford immediately to pay a mere $50 fine.
IV. Willful Violation of the Court’s Order Federal court orders are a serious matter, particularly when they involve enforcing basic constitutional rights in the wake of rampant civil rights violations. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 22 (1958) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) (“For those in authority thus to defy the law of the land is
8

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 9 of 12
profoundly subversive not only of our constitutional system but of the presuppositions of a democratic society.”).
After systemic wrongdoing was exposed and enjoined, the City chose to keep the same contract prosecutors, municipal judges, and contract defense attorneys6 even though all of them had been involved in violations of clearly established federal law and violations of the Rules of Professional Ethics on a daily basis.
It is now clear that Judge Hendley and multiple City officers and bailiffs decided to hold people in criminal contempt summarily with no lawyer and no formal process to determine willfulness—and, further, to take those people into custody for not being able to pay a $50 fine immediately.7 (All of this for allegedly being a few minutes late in a City that refuses to utilize restricted drivers’ licenses and that does not fund adequate public transportation.)
In doing so, Judge Hendley and the City (whose employees apparently knew of Judge Hendley’s policy for some time and whose officers implemented it) violated a federal injunction prohibiting some of the most serious abuses in our society: widespread jailing of people because of their poverty as part of a pattern of extortion. Judge Hendley’s “pay or jail” scheme was what this entire lawsuit was about from the very beginning, and the Defendants have demonstrated remarkable defiance of a federal injunction just months after it was issued by this Court.8
6 The City was also aware that a contract defense attorney’s sworn affidavit submitted to Judge Fuller stating that he met with every inmate prior to their court hearings was explicitly contradicted by numerous sworn declarations submitted by the Plaintiffs in this case. 7 The Defendants assert that most of the individuals were not actually transported to the City jail but were instead confined to a holding cell. 8 Through counsel, Judge Hendley now claims that he believed that he was allowed through his “inherent authority” to jail indigent people who could not afford immediately to pay a fine because he claimed this Court’s order was somehow limited “to fines and costs for misdemeanors and traffic offenses” and not to people too poor to pay fines for contempt offenses. The logic of this assertion is baffling.
9

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 10 of 12
To their credit, counsel for the Defendants have been forthcoming in responding to requests for basic information made by Plaintiffs’ counsel prior to filing any Motion to Show Cause. The Plaintiffs are still awaiting verified responses to their inquiries, as well as additional information necessary to conduct and complete their investigation. If the Plaintiffs are unable to obtain the information sought from the City, it may be necessary, in order to determine the scope and nature of the violations to which the Defendants have already admitted in general terms, for the Plaintiffs to request:
 Interrogatories relating to basic questions about the events of March 13 and any related policies, practices, or similar incidents.
 Permission to notice depositions of all City employees and agents present for the March 13 violations, as well as any City employees and agents with knowledge of similar incidents in December 2014 or related policies.
 Production of any documents relevant to the violations, including court documents, sign-in sheets, records, and any other documents reflecting the names and contact information of witnesses to the violations of March 13, 2015, or any other similar event. This includes an order to the City to provide the names and contact information of the victims of the violation of this Court’s order, if it is in the City’s possession, as well as all those held in summary contempt for being supposedly late to court since the entry of this Court’s injunction.
See, e.g., United States v. City of Northlake, 942 F.2d 1164, 1170 (7th Cir. 1991) (reversing district court’s denial of discovery on possible violations of a consent decree by a municipal government); Wesley Jessen v. Bausch & Lomb, 256 F. Supp. 2d 228, 229 (D. Del. 2003) (allowing discovery after prima facie showing of the violation of a court order).
Although the Defendants have already admitted to serious violations of this Court’s order and although the institution of contempt proceedings is appropriate because the orders of this Court must be followed, it is prudent for the Plaintiffs to investigate as soon as practicable the full scope of the violations prior to the Plaintiffs determining whether civil contempt sanctions are required to cease ongoing violations of this Court’s order.
10

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 11 of 12
In any event, the Plaintiffs file this Notice with the Court so that the Court can make its own determination concerning whether to refer the matter to the relevant authorities in order to initiate criminal contempt proceedings to punish the Defendants for blatant violations of this Court’s order. See, e.g., Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966) (explaining that civil contempt seeks to coerce future compliance while criminal contempt seek to punish for past violations); Skinner v. White, 505 F.2d 685, 688 (5th Cir. 1974) (“[C]ivil contempt lies for refusal to do a commanded act, while criminal contempt lies for doing some forbidden act.... [C]ivil contempt is conditional, and may be lifted if the contemnor purges himself of the contempt….”); see also Wyatt ex rel. Rawlins v. Sawyer, 80 F. Supp. 2d 1275, 1278 (M.D. Ala. 1999) (setting forth procedures to be followed for civil contempt); see also 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) (setting forth the court’s criminal contempt power); Fed. R. Crim. P. 42 (outlining procedures to be followed for criminal contempt).
Respectfully submitted, __/s/ Mitch McGuire _________________ Mitch McGuire (ASB-8317-S69M) __/s/ Matt Swerdlin __________________ Matt Swerdlin (ASB-9090-M74S) __/s/ Alec Karakatsanis_______________ Alec Karakatsanis (D.C. Bar No. 999294) (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Equal Justice Under Law 916 G Street, NW Suite 701 Washington, DC 20001 202-681-2409 alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs
11

Case 2:14-cv-00186-MHT-CSC Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 12 of 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that foregoing has been served upon the following by electronic filing and notification through the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama CM/ECF system, this 2nd day of April, 2015:
Stephanie L. Smithee Attorney for City of Montgomery City of Montgomery Legal Department Post Office Box 1111 Montgomery, Alabama 36101-1111 ssmithee@montgomeryal.gov
Shannon L. Holliday Copeland Franco Screws & Gill, P.A. Post Office Box 347 Montgomery, AL 36101 holliday@copelandfranco.com (334)-834-1180
Robert D. Segall Copeland Franco Screws & Gill, P.A. Post Office Box 347 Montgomery, AL 36101 (334)-834-1180 segall@copelandfranco.com
Counsel for the City of Montgomery
__/s/ Alec Karakatsanis_____________
Counsel for the Plaintiffs

 
 Case: 2:14-cv-186 As of: 10/31/2017 07:42 AM CDT 1 of 14
CLOSED,JOINT_ASSIGN,MHT−ClerkC
U.S. District Court Alabama Middle District (Montgomery) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:14−cv−00186−MHT−CSC

Mitchell, et al. v. The City of Montgomery, et al. (JOINT ASSIGN) Assigned to: Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson Referred to: Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/18/2014 Date Terminated: 12/12/2014 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Sharnalle Mitchell

represented by Alec Karakatsanis Equal Justice Under Law Executive Director 916 G St NW − Ste 701 Washington, DC 20001 202−681−2409 Email: alec@civilrightscorps.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Mitchell McGuire McGuire & Associates LLC 31 Clayton Street Montgomery, AL 36104 334−517−1000 Fax: 334−517−1327 Email: jmcguire@mandabusinesslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Scott Swerdlin Matthew Swerdlin, Attorney at Law 1736 Oxmoor Road, Suite 101 Homewood, AL 35209 205−795−3517 Fax: 205−443−6573 Email: matt@attorneyswerdlin.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Lorenzo Brown

represented by Alec Karakatsanis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Mitchell McGuire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Scott Swerdlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Courtney Tubbs

represented by Alec Karakatsanis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:14-cv-186 As of: 10/31/2017 07:42 AM CDT 2 of 14

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Mitchell McGuire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Scott Swerdlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tito Williams

represented by Alec Karakatsanis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Mitchell McGuire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Scott Swerdlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tequila Ballard

represented by Alec Karakatsanis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Mitchell McGuire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Scott Swerdlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Willie Williams

represented by Alec Karakatsanis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Mitchell McGuire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Scott Swerdlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Thomas Ellis

represented by

Case: 2:14-cv-186 As of: 10/31/2017 07:42 AM CDT 3 of 14

Alec Karakatsanis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Mitchell McGuire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Scott Swerdlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Gavin Bullock

represented by Alec Karakatsanis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Mitchell McGuire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Scott Swerdlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kendrick Maull

represented by Alec Karakatsanis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Mitchell McGuire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Scott Swerdlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tamara Dudley

represented by Alec Karakatsanis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Mitchell McGuire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Scott Swerdlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-186 As of: 10/31/2017 07:42 AM CDT 4 of 14

Plaintiff Jermaine Tyler
Plaintiff Janet Edwards
Plaintiff Risko McDaniel
Plaintiff Demetri Colvin

represented by Alec Karakatsanis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Mitchell McGuire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Scott Swerdlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alec Karakatsanis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Mitchell McGuire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Scott Swerdlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alec Karakatsanis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Mitchell McGuire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Scott Swerdlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alec Karakatsanis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Mitchell McGuire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Scott Swerdlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:14-cv-186 As of: 10/31/2017 07:42 AM CDT 5 of 14

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Carl Williams

represented by Alec Karakatsanis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Mitchell McGuire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Scott Swerdlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rayshone Williams

represented by Alec Karakatsanis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Mitchell McGuire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Scott Swerdlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant The City of Montgomery

represented by Robert David Segall Copeland Franco Screws & Gill PO Box 347 Montgomery, AL 36101−0347 334−834−1180 Fax: 334−834−3172 Email: segall@copelandfranco.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie L. Smithee City of Montgomery Legal Department 103 N. Perry Street Montgomery, AL 36104 334−625−2050 Fax: 334−625−2310 Email: ssmithee@montgomeryal.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shannon Lynn Holliday Copeland Franco Screws & Gill, PA PO Box 347 Montgomery, AL 36101−0347 334−834−1180

Case: 2:14-cv-186 As of: 10/31/2017 07:42 AM CDT 6 of 14

Fax: 334−834−3172 Email: holliday@copelandfranco.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Les Hayes, III Honorable Judge, in his official capacity

Defendant
Milton Westry Honorable Judge, in his official capacity

Defendant
Darron Hendley Honorable Judge, in his official capacity

Defendant
Lloria James Honorable Judge, in her official capacity

Movant Angela McCullough

represented by Martha Irene Morgan Attorney at Law 8800 Lodge Lane Cottondale, AL 35453 205−799−2692 Email: mimorgan@yahoo.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Marquita Johnson

represented by Martha Irene Morgan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Kenny Jones

represented by Martha Irene Morgan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Algi Edwards

represented by Martha Irene Morgan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Levon Agee

represented by Martha Irene Morgan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Adrian Floyd

represented by Martha Irene Morgan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Hassan Caldwell

represented by Martha Irene Morgan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-186 As of: 10/31/2017 07:42 AM CDT 7 of 14

Movant Devron James
Movant Ashely Scott
Movant Christopher Mooney

represented by Martha Irene Morgan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Martha Irene Morgan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Martha Irene Morgan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/18/2014
03/18/2014 03/18/2014 03/18/2014
03/18/2014
03/20/2014 03/20/2014 03/20/2014 03/25/2014 04/02/2014 04/04/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against The City of Montgomery ( Filing fee $ 400.00 receipt number 4602031370), filed by Sharnalle Mitchell, Lorenzo Brown, Courtney Tubbs, Tito Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Filing Fee Receipt)(dmn, ) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Lorenzo Brown, Sharnalle Mitchell, Courtney Tubbs, Tito Williams. (dmn, ) (This document has no pdf attached, see Doc. 1 for pdf.) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, and MOTION for Expedited Hearing by Lorenzo Brown, Sharnalle Mitchell, Courtney Tubbs, Tito Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(dmn, ) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
3 Motion for Alec Karakatsanis to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $50.00 receipt number 4602031373) by Lorenzo Brown, Sharnalle Mitchell, Courtney Tubbs, Tito Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Pro Hac Vice Filing Fee)(dmn, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/2/2014: # 3 Certificate of Good Standing) (dmn, ). (Entered: 03/20/2014)
4 Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Lorenzo Brown, Sharnalle Mitchell, Courtney Tubbs, Tito Williams. (dmn, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/26/2014: # 1 Corporate Disclosure containing original signature received) (dmn, ). (Entered: 03/20/2014)
NOTICE of Assignment to Magistrate Judge mailed to counsel for Lorenzo Brown, Sharnalle Mitchell, Courtney Tubbs, Tito Williams. (dmn, ) (NO PDF attached) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
5 Summons Issued; summons and complaint mailed CMRRR to The City of Montgomery. (dmn, ) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
6 Case reassigned to Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller. Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody no longer assigned to the case as presiding judge. (dmn, ) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
7 Return Receipt Card showing service of complaint and summons signed by Steve Kelly for The City of Montgomery served on 3/24/2014, answer due 4/14/2014. (dmn, ) (Entered: 03/25/2014)
8 *TEXT ORDER* granting 3 Motion for Alec Karakatsanis to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 4/2/2014. (dmn, ) Modified on 4/2/2014 to reflect this is a "TEXT ORDER." (dmn, ) (NO PDF attached) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
9 ORDER that a Status Conference is set for 4/8/2014 at 01:15 PM (CST) by conference call arranged by counsel for the plaintiffs before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on the 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. The Court's contact number is

Case: 2:14-cv-186 As of: 10/31/2017 07:42 AM CDT 8 of 14

04/08/2014 04/11/2014
04/14/2014 04/15/2014 04/16/2014 04/23/2014 04/29/2014 04/30/2014 05/01/2014 05/01/2014 05/01/2014

334−792−3721 at the Federal Courthouse in Dothan, Alabama. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 4/4/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, WR.(dmn, ) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller: Status Conference held by telephone on 4/8/2014 (NO PDF ATTACHED) (war, ) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
10 ORDER: This cause is before the Court on Plaintiffs' 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Hearing Request filed on 3/28/10214. A status conference was held on 4/8/2014 to address the timetable for expeditiously resolving Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. Pursuant to agreements made at the scheduling conference, the schedule is set as follows: (1) Defendant will submit a response to Plaintiff's 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction on or before 4/23/2014; (2) Plaintiffs will then submit a reply on or before 4/29/2014; (3) Plaintiffs' 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is set for a hearing. Motion Hearing set for 5/1/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2A before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 4/11/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, WR.(dmn, ) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
11 (STRICKEN pursuant to 19 ORDER) ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by The City of Montgomery.(Smithee, Stephanie) Modified on 5/2/2014 (djy, ). (Entered: 04/14/2014)
12 [VACATED PURSUANT TO COURT 24 ORDER.] RULE 26(f) ORDER directing the parties to file the Rule 26(f) report containing the proposed discovery plan as further set out in the order. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 5/19/2014. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 4/15/2014. (dmn, ) Modified on 5/16/2014 (dmn, ). (Entered: 04/15/2014)
13 Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by The City of Montgomery. (Smithee, Stephanie) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
14 RESPONSE to Motion re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Hearing filed by The City of Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−Case Action Summary, # 2 Exhibit 2−Kloess Affidavit)(Smithee, Stephanie) (Entered: 04/23/2014)
15 REPLY to Response to Motion re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Hearing filed by Lorenzo Brown, Sharnalle Mitchell, Courtney Tubbs, Tito Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4)(Karakatsanis, Alec) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
16 NOTICE of Filing Declaration of Tito Williams (filed previously as an affidavit, Exhibit 10, to Plaintiffs' 1 Complaint) by Lorenzo Brown, Sharnalle Mitchell, Courtney Tubbs, Tito Williams (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Tito Williams)(Karakatsanis, Alec) Modified on 5/1/2014 to add additional text and create link to Doc. 1 . (dmn, ) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
ORAL ORDER granting 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Entered by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 5/1/14. (war, ) (Entered: 05/01/2014)
17 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller: Motion Hearing held on 5/1/2014 re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Tito Williams, Lorenzo Brown, Sharnalle Mitchell, Courtney Tubbs (PDF available for court use only). (Court Reporter Patricia Starkie.) (war, ) (Entered: 05/01/2014)
18 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER directing as follows: (1) The City of Montgomery is enjoined from collecting or attempting to collect all outstanding fines, fees, costs, surcharges or the outstanding balance of any monies owed to the City or to Judicial Correction Services, Inc. ("JCS") associated with traffic tickets by Sharnalle Mitchell, Lorenzo Brown, and Tito Williams until further order of the Court; (2) on or before 6/2/2014, the City shall submit to the Court a comprehensive plan, as further set out in order, which shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws and the Alabama Rulesof Criminal Procedure; (3) On or before June 13, 2014, Plfs shall submit objections to the Citysproposed plan; (4) the Court will hold a Hearing to address the adequacy of the City's current or proposed plan on 6/30/2014 @ 09:00 AM before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller, in Courtroom 2A, US Courthouse,

Case: 2:14-cv-186 As of: 10/31/2017 07:42 AM CDT 9 of 14

05/02/2014 05/05/2014
05/15/2014 05/15/2014 05/15/2014 05/16/2014
05/23/2014 05/23/2014
05/23/2014

Montgomery, AL; (5) Montgomery City Attorney Kim O. Fehl, Municipal Court Director Kenneth Nixon, Montgomery City Police Chief Kevin J. Murphy, and the Presiding Montgomery Municipal Court Judge shall be present in person for the June 30, 2014 hearing; (6) This Preliminary Injunction Order shall apply to the parties, the parties' officers,agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and any other person who is in active concert or participation with the parties or the parties' officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys ; (7) Because the risk is low that the City will incur substantial expenses, costs, or damages during the pendency of this preliminary injunction, because Plfs are substantially likely to succeed on the merits, and because Plfs have limited financial resources, no security bond will be required under Rule 65(c) of the FRCP. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 5/1/14. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist). Furnished to calendar group & WR.(djy, ) (Entered: 05/01/2014)
19 ORDER directing that the City's 11 Answer to Complaint is STRICKEN for violating the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;The City shall file an Amended Answer that is compliant with Rule 8 by May 16, 2014, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 5/2/14. (djy, ) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
20 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings (PDF ACCESS RESTRICTED FOR 90 DAYS) held on May 1, 2014, before Judge Fuller. Court Reporter/Transcriber Starkie, Telephone number 334−262−1221. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION DUE WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS. Redaction Request due 5/27/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/5/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/4/2014. (djy, ) (Entered: 05/05/2014)
21 NOTICE of Appearance by Shannon Lynn Holliday on behalf of The City of Montgomery (Holliday, Shannon) (Entered: 05/15/2014)
22 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert David Segall on behalf of The City of Montgomery (Segall, Robert) (Entered: 05/15/2014)
23 MOTION to Continue DEADLINE FOR FILING ANSWER by The City of Montgomery. (Holliday, Shannon). Corrected Event to MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer on 5/16/2014 (qc/djy, ). (Entered: 05/15/2014)
24 ORDER: Upon consideration of the 23 Unopposed Motion to Continue Deadline for Filing Answer filed on 5/15/2014, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall either (a) file its answer to the Complaint no later than fourteen days after the filing of an amended complaint, or (b) in the event no amended complaint is filed, no later than 6/15/2014. It is further ORDERED that because the Court struck Defendant's Answer (Doc. 19 ) the Court's 12 Rule 26(f) Order is VACATED. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 5/16/2014. (dmn, ) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
25 NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph Mitchell McGuire on behalf of All Plaintiffs (McGuire, Joseph) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
26 AMENDED COMPLAINT First Amended Class Action Complaint against All Defendants, filed by Sharnalle Mitchell, Lorenzo Brown, Courtney Tubbs, Tito Williams, Tequila Ballard, Willie Williams, Thomas Ellis, Gavin Bullock, Kendrick Maull, Tamara Dudley, Jermaine Tyler, Janet Edwards, Risko McDaniel, Demetri Colvin, Carl Williams, Rayshone Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit, # 29 Exhibit, # 30 Exhibit, # 31 Exhibit, # 32 Exhibit, # 33 Exhibit, # 34 Exhibit, # 35 Exhibit)(Karakatsanis, Alec) Modified on 5/27/2014 to reflect this is an Amended complaint not an amendment. Wrong event code selected when originally filed. Also amended to add newly named plaintiffs. (dmn, ) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
***Attorney Matthew Swerdlin,Joseph Mitchell McGuire, and Alec Karakatsanis added for Tequila Ballard, Gavin Bullock, Demetri Colvin, Tamara Dudley, Janet

Case: 2:14-cv-186 As of: 10/31/2017 07:42 AM CDT 10 of 14

05/28/2014 05/29/2014 06/05/2014 06/05/2014 06/05/2014
06/06/2014 06/09/2014 06/09/2014
06/10/2014 06/11/2014

Edwards, Thomas Ellis, Kendrick Maull, Risko McDaniel, Jermaine Tyler, Carl Williams, Rayshone Williams, and Willie Williams pursuant to 26 First Amended Class Action Complaint. (dmn, ) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
27 MOTION to Continue (Unopposed) June 2, 2014 Deadline Set Out in Preliminary Injunction Order (Doc. 18 ) by The City of Montgomery. (Holliday, Shannon) Modified on 5/29/2014 to create actual hyperlink. (dmn, ) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
28 ORDER that a Status Conference is set for 6/5/2014 at 02:00 PM by conference call arranged by counsel for the defendant before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller. It is further ORDERED that the defendant's 27 Unopposed Motion to Continue June 2, 2014 Deadline Set Out in Preliminary Injunction Order is GRANTED to and including 6/6/2014. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 5/29/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, WR.(dmn, ) (Entered: 05/29/2014)
29 MOTION to Relieve the City of its Obligation Under the 18 Preliminary Injunction Order to File a Plan or, in the alternative, for the Court to Treat Exhibit 1 to the Proposed Counterclaim in Cleveland and Watts as Satisfying that Obligation filed by The City of Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Holliday, Shannon) Modified on 6/5/2014 to clean up text. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
30 ORDER that the Status Conference set for 6/5/2014 at 2:00 PM is RESET for 6/10/2014 at 02:00 PM by conference call arranged by counsel for the Defendant before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 6/5/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, WR.(dmn, ) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
31 ORDER re Defendant City of Montgomery's 29 Motion to Relieve the City of its Obligation under the Preliminary Injunction Order. It is ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiffs shall show cause in writing on or before 6/10/2014 at 12:00 P.M., as to why the motion should not be granted. Show Cause Response due by 6/10/2014. 2. The 6/6/2014 deadline for Defendant to submit its current or proposed plan as required under the 18 Preliminary Injunction Order and amended by the Court (Doc. 28 ) is extended to and including 6/13/2014. 3. The remaining deadlines set forth in the Preliminary Injunction Order shall otherwise remain unchanged but the Court will address the parties' requests for any extensions at the Status Conference currently set for 6/10/2014 at 2:00 P.M. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 6/5/2014. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
32 ANSWER to 26 First Amended Class Action Complaint by The City of Montgomery.(Holliday, Shannon) Modified on 6/9/2014 to reflect actual title and create link to Doc. 26 . (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
33 RULE 26(f) ORDER directing the parties to file the Rule 26(f) report containing the proposed discovery plan as further set out in the order. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 7/10/2014. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 6/9/2014. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/09/2014)
34 RESPONSE in Opposition to 29 MOTION to Relieve its Obligation Under the 18 Preliminary Injunction Order, to File a Plan or, in the Alternative, for the Court to Treat Exhibit 1 to the Proposed Counterclain in Cleveland an filed by Tequila Ballard, Lorenzo Brown, Gavin Bullock, Demetri Colvin, Tamara Dudley, Janet Edwards, Thomas Ellis, Kendrick Maull, Risko McDaniel, Sharnalle Mitchell, Courtney Tubbs, Jermaine Tyler, Carl Williams, Rayshone Williams, Tito Williams, Willie Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Municipal Court Revenue Surveys, # 2 Exhibit Mayor's Contract with JCS, Inc., # 3 Exhibit Nixon Deposition Excerpts, # 4 Exhibit Standard JCS, Inc. Notice, # 5 Exhibit JCS, Inc. Standard Conditions, # 6 Exhibit Hayes Deposition Excerpts, # 7 Exhibit Mayor's Contract with Public Defender)(Karakatsanis, Alec) Modified on 6/10/2014 to clean up text. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/09/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller: Status Conference held by telephone on 6/10/2014 (NO PDF ATTACHED). (war, ) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
35 ORDER: Pursuant to representations made by the parties at a status conference held on 6/10/2014, it is hereby ORDERED that the 7/10/2014 deadline for the parties to submit their Rule 26(f) report is extended to and including 9/8/2014. Rule 26 Meeting

Case: 2:14-cv-186 As of: 10/31/2017 07:42 AM CDT 11 of 14

06/11/2014
06/30/2014 06/30/2014 06/30/2014 07/21/2014 07/21/2014
08/20/2014 08/20/2014 08/20/2014 08/21/2014

Report due by 9/8/2014. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 6/11/2014. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
36 ORDER: On 6/10/2014, a telephone status conference was held addressing the Court's 18 Preliminary Injunction Order. Counsel for the parties in the above−styled action, as well as counsel for the parties in Cleveland v. City of Montgomery, Case No. 2:13−cv−732, and Watts v. City of Montgomery, et al., Case No. 2:13−cv−733 (hereinafter Cleveland/Watts), were present. In light of representations and agreements made at this status conference, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The June 30, 2014 hearing set forth in the Preliminary Injunction Order is CANCELLED. The Court will instead hold a Telephone Status Conference on 6/30/2014 at 09:00 AM by conference call arranged by counsel for Defendant before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller. No parties other than theattorneys for the parties in the above−styled action and in Cleveland/Watts are required to be present for the June 30, 2014 telephone conference. 2. All deadlines contained in the Preliminary Injunction Order are suspended indefinitely and the Preliminary Injunction Order is extended for 30 days. 3. The parties in the above−styled action and Cleveland/Watts shall be prepared todiscuss the status of Plaintiffs pending claims in their respective cases at the June 30, 2014 telephone conference. 4. The Clerk of Court shall also docket this order in Cleveland v. City of Montgomery, Case No. 2:13−cv−732. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 6/11/2014. Order docketed in Civil Acton No. 2:13−cv−732 as directed.(dmn, ) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
37 ORDER directing as follows: (1) a telephone Status Conference is set for 7/21/2014 @ 09:00 AM before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller, by conference call arranged by counsel for defendant; (2) directing the clerk to also docket this order in Cleveland v. City of Montgomery, et al., Case No. 2:13cv732, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 6/30/14. Furnished to calendar group & WR.(djy, ) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller: Status Conference held by telephone on 6/30/2014 (NO PDF ATTACHED) (war, ) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
Set Hearings: Status Conference set for 7/21/2014 @ 09:00 AM before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller, by telephone conference call (NO PDF attached−See Docket Entry 37 ). (djy, ) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller: Telephone Conference held on 7/21/2014 (NO PDF ATTACHED). (war, ) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
38 ORDER: On 7/21/2014, a telephone status conference was held addressing the Court's 18 Preliminary Injunction Order. It is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Preliminary Injunction Order is extended for 30 days. 2. A telephone Status Conference is set for 8/20/2014 at 02:00 PM by conference call arranged by counsel for Defendant before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller. 3. The Clerk of Court shall also docket this order in Cleveland v. City of Montgomery, et al, Case No. 2:13−cv−732. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 7/21/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, WR.(dmn, ) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
Set Hearings: Status Conference set for 8/20/2014 02:00 PM by telephone before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. (ag, ) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
39 Case reassigned to Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller no longer assigned to the case as presiding judge. (dmn, ) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
40 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson: Telephone Conference held on 8/20/2014 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time 2:06 − 2:23.) (ag, ) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
41 ORDER: On 8/20/2014, a status conference was held pursuant to this court's 38 Order dated 7/21/2014. Counsel for the parties in the above−styled action, as well as counsel for the parties in Cleveland v. City of Montgomery, et al., Case No. 2:13−cv−732, and Watts v. City of Montgomery, et al., Case No. 2:13−cv−733, were present. Pursuant to the representations of the parties made at this status conference and by agreement of the parties, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The courts preliminary injunction order (Doc. 18 ) is extended until further order of the court. 2. The 9/8/2014 (Doc. 35 ),

Case: 2:14-cv-186 As of: 10/31/2017 07:42 AM CDT 12 of 14

10/02/2014 10/06/2014 10/07/2014
10/31/2014 10/31/2014 10/31/2014 11/07/2014 11/17/2014 11/17/2014 11/17/2014
11/17/2014 11/26/2014

deadline for the parties to submit their Rule 26(f) report is continued generally. 3. All outstanding motions are denied with leave to renew. 4. Another Status Conference is set for 10/3/2014 at 02:00 PM by telephone before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. Counsel for defendant are to arrange for the conference to be conducted by telephone. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/21/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, AG.(dmn, ) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
42 ORDER that the Status Conference set for 10/3/2014 is RESET for 10/6/2014 at 02:00 PM before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/2/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, AG.(dmn, ) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
43 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson: Status Conference held by telephone on 10/6/2014 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time FTR: 2:05 PM − 2:10 PM.) (war, ) (Entered: 10/06/2014)
44 ORDER: Based on the representations of the parties made on the record on 10/6/2014, it is ORDERED that another Status Conference is set for 11/7/2014 at 02:00 PM by telephone before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. Counsel for defendant are to arrange for the conference to be conducted by telephone. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/7/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, AG.(dmn, ) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
45 STIPULATION of Dismissal (Joint) by The City of Montgomery, and All Plaintiffs. (Holliday, Shannon) Modified on 11/3/2014 to add additional filers. (dmn, ) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
46 MOTION for Joinder of Parties (Unopposed) by The City of Montgomery. (Holliday, Shannon) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
47 Joint MOTION for Entry of Final Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by The City of Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit A to Exh. 1)(Holliday, Shannon) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
48 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson: Status Conference held on 11/7/2014 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time FTR: 2:10 − 2:14.) (war, ) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
49 ORDER granting 46 Motion for Joinder, as further set out. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/17/14. (scn, ) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
50 ORDER directing that, pursuant to the joint stipulation of dismissal of plaintiffs' request for class certification and all requests for class−wide relief (doc. no. 45 ), it is ORDERED that the request for class certification and all requests for class−wide relief are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/17/14. (scn, ) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
51 JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF directing that: (1) The parties joint motion for entry of final declaratory and injunctive relief (doc. no. 47 ) is granted; (2) The parties to the agreement to settle declaratory and injunctive claims (settlement agreement), which is attached to this judgment, are to comply with its terms for the periods set out therein; (3) The plaintiffs request for declaratory and injunctive relief is resolved in full subject only to the further jurisdiction of this court to enforce the settlement agreement for the periods set out therein; (4) The plaintiffs are to notify this court of any material breaches of the settlement agreement after making full attempts to resolve the dispute with the parties as set out in the settlement agreement; the clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/17/14. (Attachments: # 1 Settlement Agreement)(scn, ) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
52 ORDER directing that another on−the−record status conference (regarding the remaining issues of damages and attorneys fees) is set for December 12, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., as further set out. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/17/14. (Furnished to Calendar/AG)(scn, ) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
53 ORDER: Based upon the representations of the parties made on the record on 11/7/2014, it is ORDERED that another on−the−record status conference (regarding

Case: 2:14-cv-186 As of: 10/31/2017 07:42 AM CDT 13 of 14

12/01/2014 12/01/2014
12/04/2014 12/12/2014
12/12/2014 12/16/2014
01/14/2015

the remaining issues of damages and attorneys' fees) is RESET for 12/12/2014, at 9:00 AM by telephone before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. Counsel for defendants are to arrange for the conference to be conducted by telephone. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/26/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, AG.(dmn, ) (Entered: 11/26/2014)
54 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs by Tequila Ballard, Lorenzo Brown, Gavin Bullock, Demetri Colvin, Tamara Dudley, Janet Edwards, Thomas Ellis, Kendrick Maull, Risko McDaniel, Sharnalle Mitchell, Courtney Tubbs, Jermaine Tyler, Carl Williams, Rayshone Williams, Tito Williams, Willie Williams. (McGuire, Joseph) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
55 ORDER that this matter be and is hereby set for a Mediation Conference on 12/19/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4B in Montgomery, AL before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody. It is further ORDERED that counsel and the parties or a representative with full authority to settle the case shall appear at and attend this conference. If counsel have not held a good faith, face−to−face settlement conference as required in the courts scheduling order, counsel shall hold this conference not less than seven days prior to the date set for mediation. On or before the close of business on December 17, 2014, each party shall provide the undersigned judge with a confidential mediation conference statement. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/1/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, WS. (dmn, ) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
56 ORDER that: (1) The plaintiffs' 54 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time is granted. (2) Any motion for attorneys' fees and costs shall be filed by 12/31/2014, or within 14 days of final judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claims, whichever is later. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/4/2014. (dmn, ) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
57 JUDGMENT: There are only two remaining issues in this litigation: damages and attorneys' fees. Because the parties have resolved the issue of damages, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court that the damages claim is dismissed. The resolution of the issue of attorneys' fees is continued generally, and the court retains jurisdiction to resolve that issue. With regard to the issue of attorneys' fees, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) Within seven days of the completion of their mediation of the issue of attorneys fees, the parties are to file a notice reflecting that mediation has beencompleted and indicating whether the issue of attorneys fees has been resolved. (2) If the parties do not resolve the issue of attorneys fees, the plaintiffs have 28 days after the filing of the mediation notice to file a motion forattorneys fees. The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter thisdocument on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to FRCO 58. This case is closed. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/12/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(dmn, ) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
58 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson: Telephone Conference held on 12/12/2014 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time FTR: 9:05 − 9:14.) (war, ) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
59 ORDER that the Mediation Conference presently set for 12/19/2014, be and is hereby RESET for 1/14/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4B in Montgomery, AL before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody. It is further ORDERED that counsel and the parties or a representative with full authority to settle the case shall appear at and attend this conference. The plaintiff should be prepared to present documents substantiating any claims for damages. If counsel have not held a good faith, face−to−face settlement conference as required in the courts scheduling order, counsel shall hold this conference not less than seven daysprior to the date set for mediation. On or before the close of business on 1/12/2015,each party shall provide the undersigned judge with a confidential mediation conference statement. The statement should not be filed with the clerk's office and should not be served on the other parties. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/16/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, WS. (dmn, ) (Entered: 12/16/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody: Settlement Conference held on 1/14/2015 (No PDF Attached). (ws, ) (Entered: 02/09/2015)

Case: 2:14-cv-186 As of: 10/31/2017 07:42 AM CDT 14 of 14

01/16/2015 04/02/2015 04/06/2015 04/07/2015 04/07/2015
11/13/2015
11/17/2015

60 JOINT NOTICE by The City of Montgomery, and Plaintiffs. (Holliday, Shannon) Modified on 1/20/2015 to add additional filers. (dmn, ) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
61 NOTICE by Lorenzo Brown, Gavin Bullock, Tamara Dudley, Janet Edwards, Jermaine Tyler, Carl Williams, Rayshone Williams, Tito Williams Notice of Willful Violation of Court Order (Karakatsanis, Alec) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
Set Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 4/7/2015 08:00 AM by telephone before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. (war, ) (Entered: 04/06/2015)
62 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson: Telephone Conference held on 4/7/2015 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time FTR: 8:07 AM − 8:28 AM.) (war, ) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
63 ORDER: Based on the representations made on the record today by the defendants that the defendants have taken corrective action, it is ORDERED that the court will not take any further action with regard to the allegations contained in the notice of willful violation of court order (doc. no. 61 ). Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 4/7/2015. (dmn, ) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
64 MOTION to Consolidate Cases pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the FRCP and/or to Reassign Case by Angela McCullough, Marquita Johnson, Kenny Jones, Algi Edwards, Levon Agee, Adrian Floyd, Hassan Caldwell, Devron James, Ashely Scott, Christopher Mooney. (Morgan, Martha) Modified on 11/16/2015 to reflect actual title. (dmn, ) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
65 ORDER: This cause is before the court on a motion to consolidate the case of McCullough, et al. v. City of Montgomery, et al., 2:15−cv−463−WKW, with this case. Because this case is closed and all issues have been resolved, it is ORDERED that the motion to consolidate (doc. no. 64 ) is denied. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/17/2015. (dmn, ) (Entered: 11/17/2015)