Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 1 Filed 10/21/15 Page 1 of 11

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

LAWRENCE J. MARTINEZ, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE CITY OF DODGE CITY, and

)

FORD COUNTY

)

)

Defendant.

)

____________________________________)

Case No. 15-CV-9344 (Class Action)

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Introduction

This case is about Dodge City’s wealth-based post-arrest detention scheme, which

operates to jail some of Dodge City’s poorest residents solely because they cannot pay an

arbitrary amount of money. Named Plaintiff Lawrence Martinez was arrested yesterday and is

currently imprisoned in the county jail solely because he is too poor to pay the amount of money

generically set by the fixed “bail schedule” used by Dodge City.

In Dodge City, arrestees face two different outcomes depending on their wealth status.

Wealthy arrestees purchase their freedom by paying an arbitrary amount set by the bail schedule.

Poor arrestees are stuck behind bars for 48 hours simply because they cannot afford to pay the

City’s pre-determined sum of money. The amount of the bond is fixed and predetermined for

each offense, ranging from $250–$2,500. Those arrestees who are too poor to afford several

hundred dollars remain in jail because of their poverty for at least two days, at which time Dodge

City typically releases them for free. In Defendants’ wealth-based detention scheme, the sole

criterion determining whether a pretrial arrestee walks free or sits in jail is the amount of money

she has.

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 1 Filed 10/21/15 Page 2 of 11
On behalf of the many other arrestees subjected to the City’s unlawful and ongoing wealth-based detention scheme, the named Plaintiff in this action challenges the use of an unlawful generic “bail schedule” that operates to detain poor arrestees while letting rich arrestees free. Dodge City’s wealth-based detention scheme has no place in a system that promises equal justice under law, and it violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution.
By and through his attorneys and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the named Plaintiff seeks in this civil action the vindication of his fundamental rights, injunctive relief assuring that his rights and the rights of the other Class members will not continue to be violated, compensatory damages for injuries suffered, and a declaration that the City’s wealthbased detention practices are unlawful.
Nature of the Action1 1. It is the policy and practice of the City of Dodge City to refuse to release arrestees from jail unless they pay a generic and arbitrary “bond” amount. That amount is between $250 and $2,500 for the minor misdemeanor cases prosecuted by the City.2 Because this sum is set generically by reference to the alleged offense of arrest, no individualized factors are considered, and anyone who cannot afford to pay is held in jail for at least two days. Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief.
Jurisdiction and Venue 2. This is a civil rights action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq., and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This Court has
1 Plaintiff makes the allegations in this Complaint based on personal knowledge as to matters in which he has had personal involvement and on information and belief as to all other matters. 2 Felony arrestees are not subject to the jurisdiction of the City of Dodge City and are instead processed according to policies adopted by the County.
2

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 1 Filed 10/21/15 Page 3 of 11
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 3. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Parties 4. Named Plaintiff Lawrence Martinez is a 33-year-old Native American resident of
Dodge City. He represents himself as an individual and represents a Class of similarly situated people all subject to the City’s wealth-based post-arrest detention scheme.
5. Defendant City of Dodge City is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Kansas. The City operates the Dodge City Police Department and the Dodge City Municipal Court.
6. Defendant Ford County operates the Ford County Jail. It instructs indigent arrestees such as Plaintiff that they must remain in jail unless they can pay the generically scheduled cash bond.
Factual Background A. The Named Plaintiff’s Arrest
7. Mr. Martinez was arrested by Dodge City police on October 20, 2015, in Dodge City, Kansas. He was charged with disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor.
8. Mr. Martinez was taken to the Ford County Jail, where jail employees told him that he would be released if he paid cash to the City of Dodge City in the amount of $250, or if a corporate surety bond was posted for him in that amount. He was told that he would be kept in jail unless he paid this amount. See Exhibit 1, Declaration of Lawrence Martinez.
9. Mr. Martinez is indigent. He has recently gained employment that is now in jeopardy due to his arrest and confinement.
10. None of Mr. Martinez’s friends or family members is able to buy his release.
3

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 1 Filed 10/21/15 Page 4 of 11
11. Mr. Martinez was not told when he would be brought to court and has not been brought to court for an initial appearance. Pursuant to City policy, the earliest that Mr. Martinez would be brought to court for a first appearance is October 22, 2015 — two days after his arrest, because the City only holds court on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
12. Mr. Martinez was told that he will be released from jail after 48 hours — at 3pm on Thursday, October 22, 2015 — if he has still not paid the $250 sought from him. B. The City’s Policies and Practices
13. The named Plaintiff would be released immediately by the City of Dodge City if he or a family member paid the amount of cash generically set by the City.
14. The treatment of the named Plaintiff and other Class members is caused by and is representative of the City’s wealth-based post-arrest detention policies and practices.
15. As a matter of policy and practice, when the Dodge City Police Department makes an arrest for a minor offense, officers inform the arrestee at booking that the person will be released immediately if the person pays money set by a fixed schedule. Exhibit 2, Bail Schedule. The arrestee is told that the arrestee will remain in jail if the arrestee is not able to make that payment.
16. Those arrestees unable to pay for release are, as a matter of policy, released for free after a period of two days without ever having appeared in court. Because arrestees are released after two days anyway, Dodge City’s money bail system is designed not to ensure appearance in court but to extort money from indigent people while under the threat of continued confinement. As a matter of policy, any money paid to secure immediate release prior to the two-day release time is automatically applied to court fines, fees, and costs without any inquiry into indigence. Exhibit 3, Bond Rules.
4

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 1 Filed 10/21/15 Page 5 of 11
17. The City holds court only twice per week, on Tuesdays and Thursdays. 18. After an arrest, Dodge City police do not deviate from their “bail schedule.” See Exhibit 2, Bail Schedule. 19. Unlike many other cities, the City does not allow immediate post-arrest release on recognizance or with an unsecured bond (in which a person would be released by promising to pay the scheduled amount if the person later does not appear). Instead, City officials require that the cash payment amount be made up front. Irrationally, the City allows for exactly such recognizance release if it has not been able to extract money from the person within two days. 20. The City makes approximately five to ten arrests every day. In a typical week, there are several people unable to make the money bail payment required by the City and who therefore sit in jail until they can come up with the general bail amount or until the City releases them for free after 48 hours. 21. Dodge City’s wealthier arrestees are released immediately if they make payment of the scheduled amount of cash. Others remain detained for varying lengths of time until they or their families are able to borrow sufficient amounts of money or arrange for third-party payment. Others, like the named Plaintiff, who are too poor even to find anyone to pay the money bond for them, are kept in jail until City officials decide to release them for free pursuant to their typical policy of releasing arrestees who have not paid after two days. 22. Because of Dodge City’s unusual and illegal policies, it is difficult for the public to obtain accurate details concerning how many impoverished Dodge City arrestees are unable to buy their immediate release each week.
Class Action Allegations 23. The named Plaintiff brings this action, on behalf of himself and all others
5

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 1 Filed 10/21/15 Page 6 of 11
similarly situated, for the purpose of asserting the claims alleged in this Complaint on a common basis.
24. A class action is a superior means, and the only practicable means, by which the named Plaintiff and unknown Class members can challenge the City’s unlawful wealth-based detention scheme.
25. This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a Class action pursuant to Rule 23(a)(1)–(4) and Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
26. This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of those provisions.
27. The Plaintiff proposes one Class seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Declaratory and Injunctive Class is defined as: all arrestees unable to pay for their release pursuant to Dodge City’s fixed bail schedule who are or who will become in the custody of Dodge City. A. Numerosity — Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)
28. The City of Dodge City Police Department made approximately 1,874 arrests in 2013. Each arrestee is presented with the City’s standard cash bond choice of pay or jail.
29. Rich arrestees pay money and walk free immediately, while poor arrestees wait in jail for 48 hours.
30. The number of current and future arrestees subjected to this policy — if it is not enjoined — is well into the hundreds. B. Commonality — Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2)
31. The relief sought is common to all members of the Class, and common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class. The named Plaintiff seeks relief concerning
6

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 1 Filed 10/21/15 Page 7 of 11
whether the City’s policies, practices, and procedures violate the rights of the Class members and relief mandating the City to change its policies, practices, and procedures so that the constitutional rights of the Class members will be protected in the future.
32. These common legal and factual questions arise from one central scheme and set of policies and practices: the City’s wealth-based detention schedule. The City operates this scheme openly and in materially the same manner every day. The material components of the scheme do not vary from Class member to Class member, and the resolution of these legal and factual issues will determine whether all of the members of the class are entitled to the constitutional relief that they seek.
Among the most important, but not the only, common questions of fact are:  Whether Dodge City has a policy and practice of using a fixed “bail schedule” to determine the amount of money necessary to secure post-arrest release;  Whether Dodge City requires that scheduled amount of money to be paid up front before it will release a person from jail;  What standard post-arrest procedures Dodge City performs on misdemeanor arrestees.
33. Among the most important common question of law are:  Whether a fixed “bail schedule” setting standard amounts of cash required up front to avoid post-arrest detention violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.  Whether the City’s action in detaining its poorest arrestees solely based on their inability to pay an arbitrary amount of money violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
C. Typicality — Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) 34. The named Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the
Class, and he has the same interests in this case as all other members of the Class that he represents. Each of them suffers injuries from the failure of the City to comply with the basic constitutional provisions: they are each confined in jail because they could not afford to pay the
7

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 1 Filed 10/21/15 Page 8 of 11
City’s fixed cash bond amount. The answer to whether the City’s scheme of policies and practices is unconstitutional will determine the claims of the named Plaintiff and every other Class member.
35. If the named Plaintiff succeeds in the claim that the City’s policies and practices concerning wealth-based detention violate his constitutional rights, that ruling will likewise benefit every other member of the Class. D. Adequacy — Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4)
36. The named Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because his interests in the vindication of the legal claims that he raises are entirely aligned with the interests of the other Class members, who each have the same basic constitutional claims. He is a member of the Class, and his interests coincide with, and are not antagonistic to, those of the other Class members.
37. There are no known conflicts of interest among members of the proposed Class, all of whom have a similar interest in vindicating their constitutional rights in the face of their unlawful treatment by their local government.
38. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Equal Justice Under Law and Garcia & Antosh, who have experience in litigating complex civil rights matters in federal court and extensive knowledge of both the details of the City’s scheme and the relevant constitutional and statutory law. Counsels’ relevant qualifications are more fully set forth in the accompanying Motion for Class Certification.
39. The combined efforts of Class counsel have so far included extensive investigation into fixed money bail schemes over a period of months, including numerous interviews with witnesses, court employees, jail inmates, families, attorneys practicing in
8

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 1 Filed 10/21/15 Page 9 of 11
municipal courts throughout the region, community members, statewide experts in the functioning of municipal courts, and national experts in constitutional law, post-arrest procedure, law enforcement, judicial procedures, criminal law, pretrial services, and jails.
40. Class counsel has a detailed understanding of state law and practices as they relate to federal constitutional requirements. Counsel have studied the way that these systems function in other cities in order to investigate the wide array of lawful options in practice for municipalities.
41. As a result, counsel have devoted enormous time and resources to becoming intimately familiar with the City’s scheme and with all of the relevant state and federal laws and procedures that can and should govern it. Counsel has also developed relationships with many of the individuals and families most victimized by the City’s practices. The interests of the members of the Class will be fairly and adequately protected by the Plaintiffs and their attorneys. E. Rule 23(b)(2)
42. Class action status is appropriate because the City, through the policies, practices, and procedures that make up its wealth-based detention scheme has acted in the same unconstitutional manner with respect to all class members. Dodge City has created and applied a simple scheme of wealth-based detention and release: it charges a several hundred dollars (based on a publicly available chart) for arrestees to purchase their immediate release. The City releases those who can pay and detains those who cannot. The detained arrestees are released pursuant to City policy of releasing detainees for free after two days.
43. The Class therefore seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin the City from continuing in the future to detain impoverished arrestees who cannot afford cash payments. Because the putative Class challenges the City’s scheme as unconstitutional through declaratory
9

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 1 Filed 10/21/15 Page 10 of 11
and injunctive relief that would apply the same relief to every member of the Class, Rule 23(b)(2) certification is appropriate and necessary.
44. Injunctive relief compelling the City to comply with these constitutional rights will similarly protect each member of the Class from being subjected to the City’s unlawful policies and practices. A declaration and injunction stating that the City cannot use a fixed cash “bail schedule” that jails indigent arrestees but frees arrestees with financial means would provide relief to every member of the Class. Therefore, declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a whole is appropriate.
45. Plaintiff seeks the following relief and hereby demands a jury in this cause for all matters so appropriate.
Claims for Relief Count One: Defendants City of Dodge City and Ford County Violate Plaintiff’s Rights by Jailing Him Because He Cannot Afford a Monetary Payment.
46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1–45. 47. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses have long prohibited imprisoning a person because of the person’s inability to make a monetary payment. Defendants violate Plaintiff’s rights by placing and keeping him in jail solely because he cannot afford to pay the amount of cash set by the generic fixed bail “schedule” used by Dodge City.
Request for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the other Class members request that this Court issue the following relief: a. A declaratory judgment that Defendants violate the named Plaintiff’s and Class
members’ constitutional rights by jailing them and keeping them in jail solely because they cannot pay a generically set amount of money to secure release after
10

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 1 Filed 10/21/15 Page 11 of 11
an arrest; b. An order and judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants
Dodge City and Ford County from enforcing unconstitutional wealth-based detention policies and practices against the named Plaintiff and the Class of similarly situated people that he represents; c. A judgment individually compensating the individual named Plaintiff for the damages that he suffered as a result of Defendants’ unconstitutional and unlawful wealth-based detention scheme, including damages resulting from his confinement in jail; d. An order and judgment granting reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and any other relief this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Peter Antosh Peter Antosh (Kansas Bar No. 21334) Attorney, Garcia & Antosh, LLP 1401 Central Avenue Dodge City, KS 67801 (620) 225-7400 pja22@yahoo.com
/s/ Phil Telfeyan Phil Telfeyan (California Bar No. 258270) (Pro Hac Vice application pending) Attorney, Equal Justice Under Law 601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW South Building — Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 505-2058 ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org
/s/ Katherine Hubbard Katherine Hubbard (California Bar No. 302729) (Pro Hac Vice application pending) Attorney, Equal Justice Under Law 601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW South Building — Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20004 (319) 325-2788 khubbard@equaljusticeunderlaw.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
11

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/15 Page 1 of 1

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 1-2 Filed 10/21/15 Page 1 of 6

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 1-2 Filed 10/21/15 Page 2 of 6

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 1-2 Filed 10/21/15 Page 3 of 6

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 1-2 Filed 10/21/15 Page 4 of 6

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 1-2 Filed 10/21/15 Page 5 of 6

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 1-2 Filed 10/21/15 Page 6 of 6

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 1-3 Filed 10/21/15 Page 1 of 1

 
 Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 23-1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 1 of 11
AGREEMENT TO SETTLE ALL EQUITABLE CLAIMS Plaintiff Lawrence J. Martinez ("Plaintiff'), individually, and by and through counsel, and the City of Dodge City ("Defendant"), individually, and by and through counsel, for good and valuable consideration, enter into this Agreement as a full and final settlement of the equitable claims in the lawsuit styled Lawrence Martinez, et al. v. City of Dodge City, et al. pending in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, Case No. 2: 15-CV-09344DDC-TJJ (hereinafter refened to as the "Lawsuit"). WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed the Lawsuit seeking equitable relief and damages while he was in the custody of the Defendant after an arrest for disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, alleging that the Defendant had a policy which unlawfully kept him in the custody of the Defendant in the Ford County Jail because he could not afford to post a cash bond pursuant to an established schedule for the alleged offense; and WHEREAS, the Defendant denies such allegations and any liability for the claims asserted in the Lawsuit and described herein, and denies liability to the Plaintiff for any claim arising out ofhis arrest on October 20, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Plaintiff and the Defendant enter into this Agreement to resolve the equitable claims in the Lawsuit efficiently without the necessity of spending money to engage in discovery and try this case, under the tem1s of this Agreement as set forth herein, with no admission of liability, wrongdoing, or otherwise by Defendant. NOW, THEREFORE, the Plaintiff and Defendant agree to the following: 1. The Parties agree to the entry of a Final Judgment as to All Declaratory and Injunctive Relief to resolve all equitable clams asserted by the Plaintiff in the Lawsuit as set out herein. The Parties have entered into a separate agreement to resolve the other claims for damages and attorneys' fees brought in this case and agree to comply with the terms and
02!33934.DOCXI9652-!25- 41!4120!6 09:05AM

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 23-1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 2 of 11

conditions of that Agreement and further agree that Plaintiffs claims for damages, costs, and attorney fees in the Lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice.
2. Subject to the approval by the Court, the Parties agree to the entry of a Declaratory Judgment as follows:
The use of secured bail as a condition for release of a person in custody after a non-warrant arrest for an offense that may be prosecuted by the City of Dodge City implicates the protections of the Equal Protection Clause when such condition is applied to the indigent. No person may, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, be held in custody after a non-warrant arrest to be prosecuted by the City of Dodge City because the person is too poor to post a monetary bond. 3. Subject to the approval of the Court, the Parties agree to the Court entering an injunction requiring that: The City of Dodge City, Kansas (hereinafter the "City") will release all individuals arrested (for non-warrant arrests) in the City for violation of municipal ordinances of the City on Own Recognizance Bonds ("OR Bonds") without further conditions of release as soon as practical after booking and will not require individuals arrested (for non-warrant arrests) to post any type of monetary bond. The only exceptions will be for (1) individuals who are under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, with these individuals being held at the Ford County Jail up to a maximum of

02133934.DOCX/9652-125- 4!14.2016 09:05AM

2

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 23-1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 3 of 11

six (6) hours from the time of the offense in order to allow the person to become sober enough to no longer endanger himself or others and to be able to understand the obligations he or she has to the municipal court upon release on the OR Bond, (2) individuals who are charged with a domestic violence crime or any other crime that involves an offense against a person may have a condition of the release on the OR Bond that the individual will have no contact with the alleged victim in the offense, with this condition remaining in effect until termination or until waived or modified by the municipal court judge for the City, and (3) individuals arrested for domestic assault, intentional assault or threatening conduct, or assault may be held in the Ford County Jail for up to 48 hours to be brought before the municipal court for the potential imposition of conditions for release other than the posting of a money bond or for a determination that the release must be denied to prevent danger to a victim, the community, or any other person under applicable constitutional standards. If the municipal court does impose conditions of release for these individuals, individuals who violate conditions of release shall be subject to such actions as determined by the municipal court pursuant to applicable law. 4. The Plaintiff and Plaintiffs counsel agree to notify counsel for the Defendant immediately upon the discovery of any alleged material breach of the foregoing Agreement. This notice shall include the specific nature of the breach and, if available, the time and date of the breach, the identity of the individuals involved in the breach, and any other details necessary

02133934.DOCX19652-125- 4'14/2016 09:05AM

3

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 23-1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 4 of 11

to identify the case or proceeding in which the alleged breach occurred to the extent the information is available. This notice shall be conveyed both through e-mail and telephonically to D. Keith Henson at the following telephone number and e-mail address (314) 244-3628 and khenson@pcblawfinn.com and Bradley C. Ralph at the following telephone number and e-mail address (620) 225-8100 and bradr@dodgecity.org. Plaintiff agrees to give the Defendant a reasonable opportunity to remedy the alleged breach before seeking relief from the United States District Court and will only notify the United States District Court if the action constituting the alleged breach has not been corrected within a reasonable period of time.
5. Defendant agrees to abide by the injunction entered by the Court as referred to in paragraph 3 unless and until otherwise ordered by the Court.
6. The Parties agree that, shortly after the claims and issues in this case were brought to the attention of the Defendant, that the Defendant and its counsel acted quickly and responsibly with the Plaintiffs counsel, without admitting any fault or liability, to put in place a system of post-arrest release that complies with the requirements as outlined in the injunction in paragraph 3, which Plaintiff agrees complies with the United States Constitution.
7. The Parties agree to submit a Joint Motion for Entry of Final Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice along with a proposed Order and Judgment consistent with this Agreement to the Court for consideration. If the Court is not willing to issue such Order and Judgment consistent herewith, then such proposal shall be void and the Plaintiff and Defendant shall confer in good faith to attempt to address the Court's concerns while still effectuating the intent and terms of this Agreement. If the Court does not issue an Order and Judgment with the consent of the Parties after such additional efforts, then upon notice by either Party to the other, this Agreement shall be void and the Parties shall resume litigation of all claims and defenses in the Lawsuit.

02!33934.DOCXi9652-125- 4114/2016 09:05AM

4

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 23-1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 5 of 11
8. That the Parties agree that 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.
9. That this Agreement may not be amended, modified, or supplemented, except in writing executed by the Parties which is or are to be bound by such amendment, modification, or supplement.
10. That the Parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement has been written in a manner understood by them and that they, in fact, understand this Agreement and entered into this Agreement knowingly and voluntarily.
11. Plaintiff and Defendant agree that this Agreement does not affect the charge of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor filed against the Plaintiff by the Defendant arising out of the Plaintiffs arrest on October 20, 2015 and any other charges for violations of municipal ordinances filed against the Plaintiff by the Defendant before the effective date of this Agreement with all charges for violations of municipal ordinances filed against the Plaintiff by the Defendant before the effective date of this Agreement being preserved and remain pending.
12. That the effective date of this Agreement is the date that all Parties have signed this Agreement and/or a counterpart of this Agreement.
[The remainder ofthis page was intentionally left blankfollowed by signature pages.]

02133934.DOCX19652-125- 4114/2016 09:05AM

5

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 23-1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 6 of 11
FORD

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 23-1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 7 of 11

CITY OF DOGE CITY, KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS

)

) ss.

COUNTY OF FORD

)

l.. l KfatkoocnarkonSnwtshoeanetwstltOllesoeaonwdAlmge,tlehealdcinstoEdtonhqisuau:ipt'difotseauhnrbaeetldthefiMaoueynlCaaloyydltafohvuireiAmncrodpeseefrionirftlshof,teerto2hxo0Ceapd1nria6tedtty,hstosebooerenncfdfoe,DoynbraoetefnedhomndgarteelstpfhCuopeoreifstfrCtyush,itoaithsnnKyeatAaolntlCgfoysrDiaetatysoeph,mdpeowgeefeaahnurotCDe,thdieoftorxydJer,egiOectKelyuyYatCegnCedxisrEtaaeytnsch,.WtuiesKtdeAAadRtngotshSraeehHsee,smAraamWebnnydet,

the

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, day and year first above written.

I

have

hereunto

set

my

hand

and

affixed

any

official

seal

My Commiss ~$AIDLEY C. RALPH
Notary Public- State of Kansas
My Appt. Expires Nov. 30, 2016

02133934.DOCX/9652-125- 4/14/2016 09:05AM

7

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 23-1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 8 of 11
EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
By: Phil Telfeyan, California Bar No. 258270 Katherine Hubbard, California Bar No. 302729 601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW South Building — Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 505-2058 ptelfeyan@equaljusticecunderlaw.org khubbard@equaljusticeunderlaw.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs

02133934.DOCX/9652-125 - 4/14/2016 09:05 AM

8

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 23-1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 9 of 11
GARCIA & ANTOSH, LLP
eter . Antosh, Kansas Bar No. 1401 Central Avenue Dodge City, KS 67801 Telephone: (620) 225-7400 pja22@vahoo.com Attorney for Plaintiffs

021339J4.DOCX/9652·12S- 4/14/2016 09:05AM

9

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 23-1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 10 of 11
FISHER PATTERSON SAYLER & SMITH
By:~l~7~ J even P~g, # 3 3550 SW 5 1 Stre P.O. Box 949 Topeka, KS 66601 Telephone: (785) 232-7761 Facsimile: (785) 32-6604 spigg@fishetpaterson.com Attorney for Defendant City ofDodge City

02133934.DOCX/9652- 125.4/14/2016 09:05 M1

10

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 23-1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 11 of 11
::Utflti[;L,PC
D. Keith Henson, #31988MO 165 North Meramec Ave., Suite 110 Clayton (St. Louis), MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 727-2266 Facsimile: (314) 727-2101 dkeithhenson@pcblawfirm.com Attorney for Defendant City of Dodge City

02133934.DOCXi9652-125. 4114/2016 09:05AM

11

 
 Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 24 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

LAWRENCE MARTINEZ, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. CITY OF DODGE CITY, and FORD COUNTY,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

Case No. 15-CV-9344-DDC-TJJ

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the Joint Motion for Entry of Final Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and

Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Martinez and Defendant

City of Dodge City, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff Lawrence Martinez (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant City of Dodge City

(“Defendant”), as parties to the Agreement to Settle All Equitable Claims (Doc. 23-1), are

ordered to comply with its terms;

2. The Plaintiff and Defendant’s Joint Motion for Entry of Final Declaratory Relief

is granted. The Court issues the following declaratory judgment:

The use of a secured bail as a condition for release of a person in

custody after a non-warrant arrest for an offense that may be

prosecuted by the City of Dodge City implicates the protections of

the Equal Protection Clause when such condition is applied to the

indigent person. No person, consistent with the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

States Constitution, may be held in custody after a non-warrant

arrest to be prosecuted by the City of Dodge City because the
1

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 24 Filed 04/26/16 Page 2 of 3
person is too poor to post a monetary bond. 3. The Plaintiff and Defendant’s Joint Motion for Entry of Final Injunctive Relief is granted. The Court enters the following injunction:
The City of Dodge City, Kansas (hereinafter the “City”) will release all individuals arrested (for non-warrant arrests) in the City for violation of municipal ordinances of the City on Own Recognizance Bonds (“OR Bonds”) without further conditions of release as soon as practical after booking and will not require individuals arrested (for non-warrant arrests) to post any type of monetary bond. The only exceptions will be for (1) individuals who are under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, with these individuals being held at the Ford County Jail up to a maximum of six (6) hours from the time of the offense in order to allow the person to become sober enough to no longer endanger himself or others and to be able to understand the obligations he or she has to the municipal court upon release on the OR Bond, (2) individuals who are charged with a domestic violence crime or any other crime that involves an offense against a person may have a condition of the release on the OR Bond that the individual will have no contact with the alleged victim in the offense, with this condition remaining in effect until termination or until waived or modified by the municipal court judge for the City, and (3) individuals
2

Case 2:15-cv-09344-DDC-TJJ Document 24 Filed 04/26/16 Page 3 of 3
arrested for domestic assault, intentional assault or threatening conduct, or assault may be held in the Ford County Jail for up to 48 hours to be brought before the municipal court for the potential imposition of conditions for release other than the posting of a money bond or for a determination that the release must be denied to prevent danger to a victim, the community, or any other person under applicable constitutional standards. If the municipal court does impose conditions of release for these individuals, individuals who violate conditions of release shall be subject to such actions as determined by the municipal court pursuant to applicable law. 5. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 4) and his request for class certification are dismissed with prejudice; 6. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 3) is dismissed with prejudice; and 7. The Plaintiff’s remaining claims in the Complaint, including Plaintiff’s claims for damages, costs, and attorney fees, are dismissed with prejudice with the Plaintiff to be responsible to pay the costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by the Plaintiff and the Defendant to be responsible to pay the costs and attorney fees incurred by the Defendant subject only to the continuing jurisdiction of the Court to enforce the injunction as set forth above. Dated this 26th day of April, 2016, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree Daniel D. Crabtree United States District Judge
3

 
 CLOSED,STAY
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF KANSAS (Kansas City) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:15−cv−09344−DDC−TJJ

Martinez v. City of Dodge City et al Assigned to: District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree Referred to: Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Lawrence J. Martinez

Date Filed: 10/21/2015 Date Terminated: 04/26/2016 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Katherine Hubbard Equal Justice Under Law 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW South Building, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20004 319−325−2788 Email: khubbard@equaljusticeunderlaw.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J. Antosh Garcia & Antosh, LLP 1401 Central Ave. Dodge City, KS 67801 620−225−7400 Fax: 620−225−4339 Email: pja22@yahoo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Phil Telfeyan Equal Justice Under Law 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW South Building, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20004 202−505−2058 Email: ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant City of Dodge City

represented by D. Keith Henson Paule, Camazine & Blumenthal, PC 165 North Meramee Avenue, Suite 110 Clayton, MO 63105 314−727−2266 Fax: 314−727−2101 Email: khenson@pcblawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J. Steven Pigg Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, LLP − Topeka 3550 SW Fifth Street

Defendant
Ford County TERMINATED: 04/14/2016

Topeka, KS 66603 785−286−6632 Fax: 785−232−6604 Email: spigg@fisherpatterson.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Toby Crouse Foulston Siefkin LLP − OP 32 Corporate Woods, Suite 600 9225 Indian Creek Parkway Overland Park, KS 66210−2000 913−498−2100 Fax: 913−498−2101 Email: tcrouse@foulston.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/21/2015 10/21/2015 10/21/2015 10/21/2015 10/22/2015 10/22/2015
10/22/2015
10/22/2015
10/22/2015 10/22/2015 10/23/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT with trial location of Kansas City, filed by Lawrence Martinez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Antosh, Peter) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET by Plaintiff Lawrence Martinez. (Antosh, Peter) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiff Lawrence Martinez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Antosh, Peter) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
4 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiff Lawrence Martinez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Antosh, Peter) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
5 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis NOTE − Access to document is restricted pursuant to the courts privacy policy. by Plaintiff Lawrence J. Martinez (Antosh, Peter) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
6 MOTION for attorney Phil Telfeyan to appear pro hac vice (Pro hac vice fee $50, Internet Payment Receipt Number AKSDC−3578328.) by Plaintiff Lawrence J. Martinez. (Attachments: # 1 ECF Registration Form)(Antosh, Peter) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
7 MOTION for attorney Katherine Hubbard to appear pro hac vice (Pro hac vice fee $50, Internet Payment Receipt Number AKSDC−3578339.) by Plaintiff Lawrence J. Martinez. (Attachments: # 1 ECF Registration Form)(Antosh, Peter) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
NOTICE OF JUDGE ASSIGNMENT: Case assigned to District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree and Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James for all proceedings. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (ydm) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
8 DESIGNATION OF PLACE OF TRIAL filed by Plaintiff Lawrence J. Martinez − trial to be held in Kansas City. (Antosh, Peter) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
SUMMONS ISSUED as to All Defendants. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (ydm) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
9 ORDER granting 6 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Phil Telfeyan for Lawrence J. Martinez pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 83.5.4 for purposes of this case only. Unless already registered, pro hac vice counsel should register for electronic notification pursuant to the court's Administrative Procedures by completing a CM/ECF Electronic Filing Registration Form at http://www.ksd.uscourts.gov/. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 10/23/15. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf

10/23/2015
10/28/2015 11/05/2015 11/05/2015 11/11/2015 11/12/2015 11/12/2015 11/12/2015
11/13/2015
11/24/2015 11/25/2015
02/23/2016

document associated with this entry.) (mm) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
10 ORDER granting 7 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Katherine Hubbard for Lawrence J. Martinez pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 83.5.4 for purposes of this case only. Unless already registered, pro hac vice counsel should register for electronic notification pursuant to the court's Administrative Procedures by completing a CM/ECF Electronic Filing Registration Form at http://www.ksd.uscourts.gov/. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 10/23/15. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (mm) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
11 NOTICE of Hearing: THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING. 3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction: (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) Motion Hearing set for 12/2/2015 at 09:00 AM in KC Room 643 before District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree. (mig) (Entered: 10/28/2015)
12 ORDER denying without prejudice 5 Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 11/5/2015. (ts) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
CIVIL FILING FEE PAID ONLINE BY CREDIT CARD: re: 1 Complaint (attorney) (paid $400 fee; Credit Card Receipt Number AKSDC−3594330). (Antosh, Peter) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
13 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Toby Crouse on behalf of Ford County. (Crouse, Toby) (Entered: 11/11/2015)
14 CLERKS ORDER EXTENDING TIME until 11/26/2015 for Defendant City of Dodge City to answer or otherwise plead. Signed by deputy clerk on 11/12/2015. (ydm) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
15 CLERKS ORDER EXTENDING TIME until 11/27/2015 for Defendant Ford County to answer or otherwise plead. Signed by deputy clerk on 11/12/2015. (ydm) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
16 MOTION for attorney D. Keith Henson to appear pro hac vice (Pro hac vice fee $50, Internet Payment Receipt Number AKSDC−3600288.) by Defendant City of Dodge City. (Referred to Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James.) (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affidavit in Support of Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice, # 2 ECF Registration Form Pro Hac Vice Electronic Filing Registration Form)(Pigg, J.) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
17 ORDER granting 16 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of D. Keith Henson for City of Dodge City pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 83.5.4 for purposes of this case only. Unless already registered, pro hac vice counsel should register for electronic notification pursuant to the court's Administrative Procedures by completing a CM/ECF Electronic Filing Registration Form at http://www.ksd.uscourts.gov/. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 11/13/2015. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (mg) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
18 Agreed MOTION to Stay All Proceedings by Defendant City of Dodge City. (Referred to Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James.) (Pigg, J.) (Entered: 11/24/2015)
19 ORDER granting 18 Agreed Motion to Stay All Proceedings by City of Dodge City. In accordance with the agreed/unopposed motion, all proceedings in this case are hereby stayed in order to allow the parties to explore a non−litigation resolution, until February 24, 2016, including the Initial Scheduling Conference and Defendants ' deadlines to respond to Plaintiffs' complaint, motion to certify class, and motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order, currently set for December 2, 2015, is postponed until further order of the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (ck) (Entered: 11/25/2015)
20 Second Agreed MOTION to Stay All Proceedings by Defendant City of Dodge City. (Referred to Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James.) (Pigg, J.) (Entered: 02/23/2016)

02/24/2016
04/14/2016 04/22/2016 04/22/2016 04/26/2016 04/26/2016

21 ORDER granting 20 Defendant City of Dodge City's Second Agreed Motion to Stay All Proceedings. For good cause shown and in accordance with the agreed/unopposed motion, all proceedings in this case, including Defendants' deadlines to respond to Plaintiffs' complaint, motion to certify class, and motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction continue to be stayed until April 25, 2016 in order to allow the parties to complete their exploration of a non−litigation resolution. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 2/24/2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (byk) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
22 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL With Prejudice as to Defendant Ford County by Lawrence J. Martinez. (Antosh, Peter) (Entered: 04/14/2016)
23 Joint MOTION for Entry of Final Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice by Plaintiff Lawrence J. Martinez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Agreement to Settle All Equitable Claims)(Antosh, Peter) (Motion Referral Removed on 4/22/2016. (mg)) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: 23 Joint MOTION for Order of Final Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice. The motion will be resolved by the District Judge.(byk) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
24 ORDER AND JUDGMENT pursuant to the 23 Joint Motion for Entry of Final Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Martinez and Defendant City of Dodge City. Signed by District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree on 4/26/2016. (mg) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
25 JUDGMENT is entered on the joint motion of plaintiff and defendant City of Dodge City, the Court entered a declaratory judgment and final injunctive relief. The 24 Order and Judgment entered April 26, 2016 describes the terms of both forms of relief. Signed by a deputy clerk on 4/26/2016. (mg) (Entered: 04/27/2016)