Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 32

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

JEROME BELL, JAMES SHEPPARD, MARTEZE HARRIS, DOMONIC BUTLER, MICHAEL DAVIS, RICKY LAMBERT, JARMALE WALKER, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

Case No. 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW

THE CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI

DEFENDANT

FINAL JUDGMENT Based on the representations and agreement of the Parties, the Court orders the following: 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter and authority to enforce the agreement of the parties. 2. The Parties to the Settlement Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 1 are ordered to comply with the terms set forth therein. 3. The Plaintiffs’ claims are hereby dismissed with prejudice subject only to the ongoing authority of this Court to enforce the terms of the attached Agreement.
Ordered this the 20th day of June, 2016.

/s/Tom S. Lee________________________ TOM S. LEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 32

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

)

JEROME BELL, JAMES SHEPPARD, )

MARTEZE HARRIS, DOMONIC

)

BUTLER, MICHAEL DAVIS, RICKY )

LAMBERT, JARMALE WALKER, eta/.)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE CITY OF JACKSON,

)

MISSISSIPPI

)

)

Defendant.

)

-------------)

Case No. 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW

AGREEMENT TO SETTLE CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

COME NOW the PARTIES to this Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs in the abovestyled action and the Defendant City of Jackson ("the City"), and, for good and valuable consideration, enter into this Agreement as a full and final settlement of all of the Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.

WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs take the position that the City is responsible and liable for and capable of preventing and remedying in the future - the constitutional violations alleged in this Civil Action, which the Plaintiffs contend involve various City officials, employees, and agents; and

WHEREAS, the City denies the Plaintiffs' allegations and any liability for the claims raised by the Plaintiffs; and

WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs and the City enter into this Agreement in an effort to resolve
this case efficiently, fairly, and without costly litigation;
EXHIBIT
1

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 32
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY agrees to the entry of a declaratory judgment by the Court, as set forth below:
It violates the Constitution to incarcerate an individual, either before or after trial, solely because an individual does not have the ability to make a monetary payment. See Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983); Cassibry v. State, 453
So.2d 1298 (Miss. 1984); Thompson v. City of Moss Point, 1:15cvl82-LG (doc.
no. 18) (S.D. Miss. November 6, 2015). Based upon this constitutional principle, no individual may be held in jail for nonpayment of fines, fees, and/or costs imposed by a court without a detennination, following a meaningful inquiry into the individual's ability to pay, that the individual willfully refuses or willfully failed to make payment. The meaningful inquiry into the individual's ability to pay includes, but is not limited to, notice, an opportunity to present evidence. Furthennore, THE CITY agrees that all misdemeanor cases in the City of Jackson's Municipal Court ("Municipal Court") will comply with the following principles and procedures: 1. No defendant will be incarcerated or detained solely because of the inability to pay any court-ordered monies, including fines, fees, court costs, or a monetary bond. See Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983). See also Cassibry v. State, 453 So.2d 1298, 1299 (Miss. 1984) ("[l]t is established beyond per adventure that an indigent may not be incarcerated because he is financially unable to comply with an otherwise lawfully imposed sentence of a fine."); Thompson v. Moss Point, 1:15-cv-00182-LG-RHW, Declaratory Judgment (doc. no. 18) (S.D. Miss. Nov. 6, 2015) ("No person may, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, be held in custody after an arrest because the person is too poor to post a monetary bond."). 2. No defendant will be incarcerated for the failure to pay any court-ordered monies, including fines, fees, and court costs, unless a Municipal Court judge makes written findings, after appointing counsel to represent the defendant and conducting a hearing in a manner consistent with Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983), Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507, 2520 (2011), and Miss. Code Arm. § 99-19-20, that the defendant has the ability to pay and the
2

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 4 of 32
failure to pay was willful. Moreover, as discussed in paragraph 24 of this Agreement, the City will implement a system of graduated sanctions for those cases in which a Municipal Court judge makes a written finding that a defendant has willfully failed to pay court-ordered monies.
3. Financial Hardship Forms (attached as Appendix 1) shall be made available to defendants at all Municipal Court proceedings. At the beginning of each court session, Municipal Court personnel or a Public Defender shall announce the availability of such forms and advise all defendants that they may complete a Financial Hardship Form in order to allow the Court to consider financial conditions at the time of sentencing. The Municipal Court judges shall also advise each defendant of the availability and purpose (as explained in this Agreement) of the Financial Hardship Forms when his or her case is called. Defendants shall be offered the assistance of a Public Defender or court appointed attorney when completing the form. 1
4. When a defendant is adjudicated guilty, by plea or by trial, for an offense for which a Municipal Court judge has the discretion to impose a fine, the judge shall conduct an individualized inquiry into the defendant's ability to pay before detennining the amount of the fine, if any, that will be imposed. In all such cases:
a. The Municipal Court judge shall inform the defendant of the maximum fine(s) authorized by law, or the maximum fine(s) that the judge is considering imposing on the defendant (if less than the amount authorized by Jaw), and the related fees and costs.
b. The Municipal Court judge shall inquire as to whether the defendant has completed a Financial Hardship Form and shall explain its use in sentencing. Ifa defendant has completed such a form, it shall be provided to the judge for consideration. If a defendant has not yet completed a Financial Hardship Form
1 Under no circumstances will a defendant be required to consult with an employee of the City Prosecutor's Office.
3

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 5 of 32
and wishes to do so, the defendant shall be provided an opportunity to complete the form with the assistance of a Public Defender or court appointed attorney. c. Financial Hardship Forms are submitted under penalty of perjury. d. The Municipal Court judge shall consider the information in the Financial Hardship Form in determining the amount of the discretionary fine, if any, that will be imposed. The fine, if any, shall be proportionate to the defendant's ability to pay. The judge shall not assess any discretionary costs or fees on a defendant who meets the objective definition of indigence provided in paragraph 7 of this Agreement. e. No person will be sentenced to a term of incarceration because s/he lacks the ability to pay a fine(s), fees, or costs. 5. When fines, fees, and/or costs are imposed by a Municipal Court judge, the judge shall ask the defendant if s/he can afford to pay the full amount of the fines, fees, and costs on that same day. If the defendant states that s/he is able to pay the full amount of the fines, fees, and costs on the same day, the defendant will be informed how to make the payment. When the defendant pays the full amount of the fines, fees, and costs, s/he will receive a receipt confirming that the judgment has been satisfied (a copy of which will be placed in the court file), and the case will be closed. The receipt will include the defendant's name, the case number(s), and the date the judgment was satisfied. 6. If, following inquiry by a Municipal Court judge, a defendant states that s/he is unable to pay the full amount of a fine(s), fee(s) or cost{s) on the day it is imposed, the Municipal Court judge shall consider the information in the defendant's financial hardship form
4

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 6 of 32
(attached as Appendix I) in determining a reasonable time and method of payment.2 If the defendant meets the objective definition of indigence provided in paragraph 7 of this Agreement, the judge and the City shall provide the defendant with the option of satisfYing the judgment by: (i) paying off the judgment in monthly payments of$25.00 or less; or (ii) performing community service at a fixed hourly rate of at least $9.00 per hour or the state or federal minimum wage, whichever is highest.
7. The Municipal Court shall use the current Federal Poverty Guidelines ("FPG") when making indigence determinations, and there will be a presumption of indigence when a defendant's income is at or below 125% of the FPG, subject to a review ofhis or her assets. A defendant at or below 125% of the FPG without substantial liquid assets available to pay fines,
fees, and costs will be deemed indigent. In determining whether a defendant has substantial
liquid assets, the judge will not consider up to $1 0,000 in tangible personal property (including motor vehicles, household goods, cash on hand, etc.) or any other assets or monies exempted from seizure under execution or attachment by Miss. Code Ann. § 85-3-1. If the defendant is above 125% ofthe FPG, the judge will make an individualized assessment ofhis or her ability to pay based on the totality of the circumstances, including but not limited to the defendant's disposable income, financial obligations, and liquid assets. If the judge determines that a defendant who claims indigence is not indigent, the case file shall include a written explanation of the basis for the judge's determination.
8. In no event will a defendant be charged extra fees or costs, or otherwise be penalized, for participation in a payment plan or community service plan.
z If for some reason the defendant has not already completed a Financial Hardship Fonn, slhe will be given an opportunity to complete the fonn with the assistance of the Public Defender or some other designated City employee(s). The defendant will complete the financial hardship fonn under the penalty of perjury and will submit the fonn to the judge.
5

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 7 of 32
9. If a defendant chooses the option of community service, the weekly requirement shall be a minimum of eight (8) hours and a maximum of twenty (20) hours of community service. However, a judge may order more hours of weekly community service at the request of the defendant. When imposing community service, the judge shall take into consideration the work or school schedule (and other obligations) of the defendant (proof of which shall be provided by the defendant) and shall not require the defendant to perform community service at a time that conflicts with the defendant's work or school schedule.
I0. In order to allow defendants to attend school, maintain employment, or seek employment while completing community service, the City's Municipal Court community service program shall be expanded within 120 days of execution of this Agreement to include
I
evening and weekend shifts. During that 120-day period, defendants whose class schedule, employment, or search for employment necessitates weekend and evening shifts shall not be ordered to appear initially for community service until after August 31, 2016. If after 120 days accommodations have not been made for evenings and weekends, and if the defendant still desires such, then the defendant shall be allowed to perform less than eight (8) hours per week to fulfill his/her community service requirements until accommodations become available.
11. The City will provide reasonable accommodations such that qualified individuals
with disabilities may participate in its community service program. See Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.
12. When a defendant is placed on a payment plan or community service plan, the judge will explain the terms of the plan to the defendant in open court. The judge will ensure that the defendant understands the tenns of the payment or community service plan and a written copy of the plan will be provided to the defendant. No defendant will be asked to sign a payment
6

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 8 of 32
plan agreement or community service plan agreement until the terms of that agreement have been explained to him or her by the judge or the Public Defender or court appointed attorney.
13. Upon being placed in the community service program, the Court shall provide to the defendant in writing the address to which a defendant must first report for community service, the date and time on which s/he must first report for community service, and the telephone number of the community service coordinator(s). Upon first reporting for community service, a written community service plan shall be provided to the defendant by either the City or the entity at which the assigned community service will be perfonned.
14. Each written copy of a payment or community service plan shall include: (i) notice that no defendant will be incarcerated for the inability to comply with the tenns of a payment or community service plan; (ii) notice of the defendant's obligation (discussed in paragraph 15 of this Agreement) to notify Court Services of any changes to his or her mailing address; (iii) notice of the defendant's right (discussed in paragraph 17 of this Agreement) to adjust his or her payment or community service plan based on a change in his or her circumstances; (iv) notice of the defendant's rights (discussed in paragraphs 18 and 19 of this Agreement) to request a free paper copy of his or her payment or community service record and to challenge the Municipal Court's record of his or her payments or community service; (v) notice of the graduated sanctions (discussed in paragraph 24 of this Agreement) that may be imposed for willful failures to comply with the tenns of a payment or community service plan; and (vi) the telephone number and mailing address for Court Services.
15. When a defendant is placed on a payment plan or community service plan, the Municipal Court judge or a designated Court Services staff member wi11 confinn the defendant's mailing address and telephone number(s) (including any ceU phone number(s)). This information will be recorded in the defendant's case fiJe(s). The written copy of the payment or
7

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 9 of 32
community service plan will inform the defendant of his or her obligation to notify Court Services of any changes to his or her mailing address or telephone number(s). The lack of a mailing address or telephone number will not be a basis for refusing to place a defendant on a payment plan or community service ·plan.3
16. The Municipal Court will keep an accurate record of a defendanfs debts, payments, and/or community service hours. Upon request, the Municipal Court shall provide a written receipt for any payment. An accurate record of the hours of community service performed by each defendant on a community service plan will be submitted to the Municipal Court by its community service program coordinator(s) and/or the entity at which community service is being performed.
17. A defendant on a payment plan or community service plan may appear at the Court Services window on any Tuesday or Thursday morning between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. to be placed on the docket for a hearing that same day before a Municipal Court Judge to adjust his or her plan, or to switch to a payment plan or community service plan, based on a change in his or her circumstances.
18. At any time, a defendant on a payment plan may request from Court Services, and shall be provided, a free paper copy of his or her payment history. A defendant who wishes to contest the Municipal Court's record of his or her payments may appear at the Court Services window on a Tuesday or Thursday morning between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. to be placed on the docket for a hearing that same day before a Municipal Court Judge.
19. At the end of each month, the City's community service program coordinator(s) or the entity at which community service is being perfonned shall make available, upon request, 3 The defendant may be asked to provide alternate contact infonnation such as the phone number or mailing addresses of relatives or friends with whom the defendant is in regular contact. This infonnation shall be provided as a matter ofconvenience, and communication to any such phone number or address shall not be deemed notice to the defendant
8

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 10 of 32
to each person on a community service plan a free copy of his or her community service history. A defendant who wishes to contest the record of his or her community service may appear at the Court Services window on a Tuesday or Thursday morning between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. to be placed on the docket for an appearance that same day before a Municipal Court Judge. The Municipal Court Judge shall then set a date for a hearing at which both the defendant and the defendant's community service program coordinator shall be afforded an opportunity to address the Court regarding the defendant's community service history.
20. If a defendant on a payment plan fails to make a scheduled monthly payment, Court Services will mail written notification of the alleged missed payment to the defendant within thirty (30) days of the missed payment due date. The notification will inform the defendant of rus or her right to appear at the Jackson Municipal Court on a Tuesday or Thursday morning within thirty (30) days of receipt of that notification for the purpose of participating in a hearing before a Municipal Court judge at which slhe may explain or challenge the alleged missed payment and requesra continuation of, or an adjustment to, his or her payment plan. The written notification also will inform the defendant that his or her ability to pay will be considered at the hearing and that no person who is unable to pay to due to indigence will be incarcerated for a failure to make a payment. A copy of the notification will be placed in the defendant's court file(s).
21. If a defendant on a payment plan fails to make two consecutive monthly payments and fails to request a hearing to explain or challenge the missed payments, the Municipal Court may personally serve a written notice to the defendant (the City of Jackson may refer to this written notice internally as a "field release warrant''), directing him or her to appear at the Jackson Municipal Court on a date certain for a hearing at which s/he will be required to show cause why he or she should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the terms of his or
9

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 11 of 32
her plan. No person shall be detained or incarcerated at the time such written notice is served. The written notice shall inform the defendant that failure to appear as instructed may result in the issuance of a warrant for his/her arrest.
22. If a defendant on a community service plan fails to perform the requisite
community service hours in a particular month, Court Services will mail written notification of
the alleged failure to the defendant within fourteen (14) days of the end ofthat month or within fourteen (14) days of notice to Court Services of the failure to comply. The notification will inform the defendant of his or her right to appear at the Jackson Municipal Court on a Tuesday or Thursday morning within fourteen (14) days of receipt of that notification for the purpose of participating in a hearing before a Municipal Court judge, at which s/he may explain or challenge the alleged failure and request a continuation of, or an adjustment to, his or her community service plan. A copy of the notification will be placed in the defendant's court file(s).
23. If a defendant on a community service plan fails to perform the requisite community service hours for two consecutive two-week periods, the Municipal Court may personally serve a written notice to the defendant (the City of Jackson may refer to this written notice internally as a "field release warrant"), directing him or her to appear at the Jackson Municipal Court on a date certain for a hearing at which s/he will be required to show cause why he or she should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the terms of his or her plan. No person shall be detained or incarcerated at the time such written notice is served. The written notice shall inform the defendant that failure to appear as instructed may result in the issuance of a warrant for his/her arrest.
10

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 12 of 32
24. If, following a hearing at which the defendant is present and represented by a Public Defender (or retained counsel), a Municipal Court judge makes written findings4 that a defendant has willfully failed to make a monthly payment(s) or willfully failed to perform community service hours, the judge may:
a. Warn the defendant that further willful failure to comply with the terms of his or her payment or community service plan may result in his or her incarceration; and/or
b. Modify the terms ofthe defendant's payment or community service plan to enable the defendant to comply with the plan; and/or
c. Incarcerate the defendant at the Hinds County Detention Center or Hinds County Penal Farm (or other detention facility) for up to two (2) days for the FIRST finding of willful failure(s) to comply with the terms of his or her payment or community service plan;5 or
d. Incarcerate the defendant at the Hinds County Detention Center or Hinds County Penal Farm (or other detention facility) for up to seven (7) days for the SECOND finding of willful failure(s) to comply with the terms of his or her payment or community service plan;6 or
e. Incarcerate the defendant for one day for each $100 of his or her outstanding indebtedness at the Hinds County Detention Center or Hinds County Penal Fann (or other detention facility) for the THIRD or subsequent finding of willful failure(s) to comply with the terms of his or her payment or community service plan.7
f. Defendants incarcerated for a third willful failure to comply with the terms of his or her payment or community service plan shall be given credit toward their debt to the City at the rate of $1 00 per day if they are willing and able to participate in
• Written findings shall include a comprehensive statement of reasons for the Coun's detennination, and the factual bases thereof, sufficient to allow a reviewing court to determine the propriety of the judicial finding or action. 5 The defendant's debt to the City shall be reduced by at least SI00 for each day of incarceration. 'The defendant's debt to the City shall be reduced by at least $100 for each day ofincarceration. 7 If the amount of unpaid debt for fines, fees, and costs is in an amount not a multiple of I00, an additional day of incarceration may be ordered or the Court can permit the defendant to pay the remaining amount less than $100 and avoid the additional day of incarceration. For example, a defendant with $1,200 of debt for fines, fees, and costs may be incarcerated for up to 12 days at a detention facility for the third judicial finding of willful failure(s) to comply with the terms of a payment or community service plan. A defendant with $875 of debt to the City may be incarcerated for up to nine days or pay $75 and limit his or her incarceration to eight days.
11

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 13 of 32
a detention center's work program. Defendants who are unable to participate in the work program as a result of some disability will also be given credit toward their debt to the City at the rate of $100 per day.8 DefendWlts who are able to participate in the work program, but willfully refuse to do so, shall be given credit at the rate of $25 per day. In the event a defendant incarcerated for a third willful failure to comply with the tenns of his or her payment or community service plan has an outstanding balance after any term of incarceration imposed by the Court, the Court may then (i) waive the outstanding balance or (ii) place the defendant back on a payment or community service plan as described in this agreement. A defendant's aggregate tenn of incarceration for a conviction and any failure(s) to comply with a payment or community service plan related to that conviction may not exceed the maximum tenn of incarceration authorized by statute for the underlying offense. See Miss. Code Ann. §
99-l9-20(2)(b).
25. If a defendant is incarcerated for a willful failure to comply with the tenns of a payment plan or community service agreement pursuant to paragraph 24 of this Agreement, the defendant shall be released immediately upon payment of his or her outstanding debt for fines, fees, and costs.
26. Only in those cases in which the Court has made written findings of willful failure to comply with the terms of a payment or community service plan may the Court, in its discretion, impose a fine for "contempt" in an amount not to exceed $1 00 and/or a warrant fee in an amount not to exceed $25.
27. Copies of the Municipal Court judge's written findings regarding the willfulness of the failure to comply with the tenns of a payment plan or community service plan shall be provided to the defendant and placed in the court file. When incarceration is ordered, a copy of the judge's written fmdings shall also be provided to the Hinds County Detention Center or
'Defendants who are incarcerated under this paragraph shall be asked by the sentencing judge, prior to their incarceration, whether there is any limitation on their ability to work while incarcerated. All defendants who are receiving disability benefits from any governmental entity shall be presumed unable to work. As to all other defendants, the Court shall make written findings regarding the determination ofa defendant's claim that he or she is unable to work while incarcerated.
12

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 14 of 32
Hinds County Penal Farm (or other detention facility) within 48 hours of the defendant's admission.9
28. If, at any time, a Municipal Court judge concludes that a defendant is unable to comply with the terms of a payment or community service plan due to indigence and/or disability, the judge will revoke the fine(s) in whole or in part pursuant to Miss. Code-Ann. § 9937~11 ("Relief from payments"). If the entire amount of the fme is revoked, the case will be closed. 10
29. When a defendant has satisfied his or her debts in a particular case, s/he will receive a receipt showing that the judgment has been satisfied (a copy ofwhich will be placed in the court file), and the case will be closed. The receipt shall include the defendant's name, the case number(s), and the date the judgment was satisfied.
30. Within 48 hours of the entry of this Agreement, all persons currently incarcerated by the City at the Hinds County Detention Center and the Hinds County Penal Farm (or other detention facility) for the failure to pay fines, fees, and costs assessed by the Municipal Court shall be brought before a Municipal Court judge and released on a payment plan or a community service plan that complies with the terms of this Agreement.
31. Following the entry of this Agreement, any person on an existing payment plan or community service plan, or who otherwise has outstanding debts for fines, fees, or costs assessed by the Municipal Court, shall be permitted an opportunity to appear before a Municipal Court judge to be placed on a payment plan or community service plan that complies with the terms of this Agreement. All persons who appear at the Municipal Court to submit payment pursuant to dmCs910tiaesIaSyafnyebetaeedirlrediAptvoeyeonfr"enkyt)nhd.e.deiGnaaHgnetnfiani.anpdpeOpspepCepa.aulo,lNrsustohnut.etahyne9wt8PMr-eti0ontut2aen0lnSi9cFef,icapitnHniadonloinnnCagot9osrt9uha~orebt3fl7jtetiu-hm1dSe1etgeMeovw'efushandLediencimttitepliaerasm,sldi1oiCen9nfoae9utnf8iroodtlnWalsonhowLtafliil2nsw2gbi4"elail2nfnp9udr0luoingnve(esiMsndusetci"sdcasen.otsdorsAfttuh.hhGlaees.aHopA"rpiadpneerda.prlse.1oCn7fno,iaun1nnc9eta9ynr8tc}Dep(rehaatetycinsootinicuoarinlst
13

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 15 of 32
an existing payment plan shall be provided with a flyer advising them that they may appear at the Municipal Court on any Tuesday or Thursday between 9:00a.m. nnd 10:00 n.m. and be added to the docket so that they may appear before a Municipal Judge to be placed on a new payment or community service plan that complies with the tenns of this Agreement. All persons on existing community service plans shall be provided with the same flyer. The City shall also provide notice of the right under this Agreement to be placed on a payment plan or community service plan by posting the flyer on the front doors of the Municipal Courthouse and on the Municipal Court's payment window and by posting the flyer on the City's official website. No person who requests to be placed on a payment plan or community service plan that complies with the terms of this Agreement will be jailed for a prior failure to comply with a payment plan or community service plan.
32. No person shall be arrested or incarcerated pursuant to existing warrants for alleged unpaid fines, fees, or costs. Any person with such an outstanding warrant who is stopped or otherwise detained by law enforcement shall be issued a "field release" that sets forth in writing the date and time when that person is to appear in Court to be placed on a payment or community service plan that complies with the terms of this Agreement. Persons who are issued a field release and who fail to appear as instructed are subject to the issuance of a warrant and appropriate sanctions for failure to appear.
33. All persons previously incarcerated for an alleged failure to pay fines, fees, or costs assessed by the Municipal Court who have outstanding unpaid fines, fees, or costs shall have their remaining debt forgiven at a rate of $100.00 for each day of prior incarceration. 11 All such persons who appear at the Municipal Court to submit payment toward their current 11 Credit for SJ 00 for each day of incarceration shall be the gross amount of credit provided. For example, a person who received credit at a rate of$58 per day while incarcerated shall be given an additional $42 ofcredit for each day of incarceration. A defendant who received credit at the rate of$25 per day, shall receive an additional $75 credit for each day previously incarcerated.
14

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 16 of 32
indebtedness shall be provided with a document stating that all persons previously incarcerated for failure to pay fines, fees, or costs assessed by the Municipal Court who have outstanding unpaid fines, fees, or costs are entitled to receive additional credit for each day of their prior incarceration. All such persons shall be informed that they may appear at the Municipal Court on any Tuesday or Thursday and will be placed on the docket to appear before a judge and be granted this additional credit. If the total amount of forgiveness is equal to or greater than the amount owed, the City will provide a receipt at the hearing which will indicate that the indebtedness has been paid in full and the person's case(s) will be closed.
THE CITY further agrees that: 34. Secured money bonds will not be used to detain persons arrested for any misdemeanor12 that may be prosecuted by the City in its Municipal Court. 35. All persons arrested - with or without a warrant - for any misdemeanor that may be prosecuted by the City in its Municipal Court (subject to the exceptions listed in paragraphs 36 and 37 below) will be released on their personal recognizance as soon as practicable after arrest, subject to the conditions listed in the "CONDITIONS OF RECOGNIZANCE BOND(S) IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI" form (Police Use - "Field Release"), which is attached to this Agreement as Appendix 2(A). See, e.g., Lee v. Lawson, 315 So.2d 1019 (Miss. 1979). If the arrested person has a documented history of failing to appear in Jackson Municipal Court, such person also shall be released as soon as practicable after arrest, but an unsecured Appearance Bond in an amount not to exceed $1,000 may be imposed. Appearance Bond Form attached hereto as Appendix 3. 13
12 Reference to "misdemeanor" herein includes all traffic offenses prosecuted by the City ofJackson. 13 The tenn "unsecured Appearance Bond" as used herein refers to an amount of money that a defendant may be ordered to pay should slhe fail to appear as ordered by the Court. Such a bond does not require the posting of any
15

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 17 of 32
36. Persons charged with Domestic Violence, Simple Assault, Assault on a Police Officer, Assault on a Minor, Assault with a Deadly Weapon, Shooting in the City, or Stalking may be detained and must be brought before a Municipal Court judge on the next business day after arrest (and in no instance more than 48 hours after arrest14) for release on personal recognizance subject to the least restrictive non-monetary conditions necessary to ensure the person's appearance in court and to protect the community. However, should the arrest take place during the weekend, the judge may set the conditions for release telephonically. In such cases, the defendant shall be required to appear in court for arraignment on a date and time designated by the Court. The conditions of release imposed by the Municipal Court judge shall be listed in a "CONDITIONS OF RECOGNIZANCE BOND(S) IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPr' form ("Court Use"), which is attached to this Agreement as Appendix 2B. In the matters described in this paragraph, and upon a finding by the Court that additional measures are required to secure the defendant's appearance, an unsecured Appearance Bond in an amount not to exceed $1,000 also may be imposed. Appearance Bond Form attached hereto as Appendix 3.
37. Persons arrested who appear to be incapacitated or intoxicated may be held in custody up to four (4) hours before being released on their personal recognizance, subject to the conditions listed in the "CONDITIONS OF RECOGNIZANCE BOND(S) IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI" form, which is attached to this Agreement as Appendix 2A (Police Use - "Field Release").
38. Any person subject to conditions of release other than the requirement to appear
in court may, at any time, request a hearing to show good cause why the conditions of his or her
security prior to release, does not involve any surety or bondsman, and does not result in any payment obligation unless and until the Court makes a finding that the defendant violated the terms of the bond. 14 See County ofRiverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991).
16

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 18 of 32
recognizance bond should be modified. The person may appear at the Municipal Court on any Tuesday or Thursday between 9:00a.m. and 10:00 a.m. and be added to the docket so that s/he may appear before a Municipal Judge to request modification of his/her conditions ofrelease.
39. If a NO CONTACT or STAY AWAY condition prevents a person from accessing personal items, that person will be offered the opportunity to collect his or her personal items with an escort from the City of Jackson Police Department.
40. All persons arrested and released by the City of Jackson shall be notified in writing upon release of the time, date, and place at which they are required to appear in court. If a person released on a recognizance bond fails to appear for a scheduled court date in the Municipal Court, or otherwise fails to comply with the conditions of his or her recognizance bond, a warrant may be issued for his or her arrest. Within 48 hours of being detained for an alleged failure to appear or failure to comply with the conditions of his or her bond, the person shall be offered an opportunity to demonstrate good cause for his or her failure to appear or noncompliance, or to rebut the allegations against him or her, at a hearing, in person or telephonic, before a Municipal Court judge. If no hearing is held within 48 hours ofthe person's detention, s/he shall be released with instructions to appear before a Municipal Court judge on a specified date. If the Municipal Court judge finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person willfully failed to appear or violated one or more of the conditions of his or her recognizance bond, without good cause, that person's bond may be revoked and s/he may be detained until his or her case reaches disposition or released subject to additional non-financial conditions. The Municipal Court judge also may release the person subject to any reasonable non-fmancial conditions, including unsecured bond. If the person previously had been placed on an Appearance Bond, slhe will be eligible for release upon payment of the amount set forth in the
17

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 19 of 32
Appearance Bond or upon a determination by the judge that release is appropriate without such payment.
THE CITY further agrees to the following in all cases in the City of Jackson's Municipal Court:
41. A Public Defender or court appointed attorney shall represent all indigent defendants charged with an offense punishable by confinement. See, e.g., Miss. Code Ann. § 2123-7.
42. Municipal Court judges shall conduct a plea colloquy consistent with the provisions of U.C.C.C.R. 8.04 and Fed. R. Civ. P. ll{b) before accepting any guilty plea and shall ensure that the defendant is knowingly and voluntarily entering the plea and waiving his or her state and federal constitutional rights. The plea colloquy shall not be conducted by any employee of the City Prosecutor's Office.
43. The Municipal Court shall provide each defendant who is adjudicated guilty, by trial or by plea, with written notification that slhe has a right to appeal to the County Court of Hinds County for a trial de novo. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-35-1 & U.C.C.R. 12.02. 15
44. The City shall ensure that adequate space is provided such that each defendant who is represented by a Public Defender may have the opportunity to meet privately with the Public Defender, in a confidential space, before he or she decides how to proceed with his or her case. Adequate confidential space will be provided for this purpose in the Municipal Court building. No guilty pleas will be accepted until a Municipal Court judge has ensured that the defendant has had an adequate opportunity to consult privately with his or her appointed attorney and that he or she is satisfied with the advice and representation she has received.
15 See also Jones v. State, 912 So.2d 579, 580 (Miss. 2008) (citation omiued) ("A convicted defendant, although he may have pleaded guilty, may take an appeal to circuit or county court and be granted a trial de novo.").
18

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 20 of 32
45. The City shall provide alternative appointed counsel (i.e. "conflict counsel") for
eligible indigent defendants who cannot be represented by a Public Defender because of a
conflict of interest
THE CITY further agrees:
46. To develop and comply with written policies and procedures for providing defendants and the general public with prompt and easy access to public Municipal Court criminal files required to be made available to the public under the Mississippi Public Records Act, and for providing paper copies of those files at a reasonable cost, and at no cost to indigent defendants seeking to challenge the fines, fees, and costs assessed against them or seeking to appeal a Municipal Court judgment.
47. To train all Municipal Court judges, Municipal Court prosecutors, Municipal Court public defenders, Court Services personnel and other Municipal Court staff regarding the terms and requirements of this Agreement, and all policies and procedures developed in accordance with this Agreement, within 120 days of the entry of this Agreement.
48. To require all Municipal Court public defenders to attend at least six (6) hours per year of public defender training sponsored or approved by the Office of the State Public Defender. The Court shall ensure that court appointed coUnsel and conflict counsel are knowledgeable of this agreement and competent to represent defendants in Jackson Municipal Court.
49. To inform all Municipal Court judges and other City employees that refusal to comply with the terms of this Agreement will subject them to the City's "progressive disciplinary procedures."16
16 The City shall notify Plaintiffs counsel ofany material breach of this Agreement by any Municipal Court judge or City employee.
19

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 21 of 32
50. Except where provided for or otherwise herein, to fully implement the tenns set forth herein within 120 days of the entry of this Agreement. The implementation process shall begin immediately upon entry of this Agreement, and no person shall be incarcerated for failure to pay fines and fees during this 120-day period without being afforded the full process and protections set forth herein.
51. To notify Plaintiffs' counsel by email within twenty-four (24) hours of any Municipal Court defendant being incarcerated for willful failure to comply with a payment or community service plan (as discussed in paragraph 24 above), or otherwise incarcerated or detained for nonpayment of fines, fees, and costs. Notification will be sent to Cliff Johnson and Jacob Howard at the following email addresses: cjohnson@macarthurjustice.org and jhoward@macarthurjustice.org. The notification will include the defendant's name, the date of the order incarcerating the defendant, the case number(s), the name ofthe attorney representing the defendant, and a copy of the Municipal Court judge's written findings. The obligation to provide these notifications will end 180 days from the date this Agreement is executed.
52. To implement any policies, regulations, or municipal laws that are necessary to fully enforce the tenns of this Agreement.
53. That if any law creates a conflict with the tenns of this Agreement, the City will notify Plaintiffs' counsel and the Court as soon as practicable so that appropriate action, if any, can be taken.
The PLAINTIFFS each agree:
54. To the entry of a finaJ judgment as to all declaratory and injunctive relief.
55. Not to amend the Complaint in this action or to bring any other action against any Party to this Agreement for any equitable relief which was or could have been sought in this action.
20

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 22 of 32
56. To forego their request for class certification and not hereafter file a Motion for Class Certification.
57. To notify counsel for the City as soon as practicable after the discovery of any alleged material breach of this 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 the City Attorney for the City. Plaintiffs will give the City a reasonable opportunity to remedy the alleged breach before seeking relief from the Court.
58. That their heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns will be bound by the terms of this Agreement.
ALL PARTIES agree to the following: 59. During the initial24 months following entry of the consent decree, counsel for the Parties agree to meet in person at least once every three months to discuss implementation of this Agreement and compliance therewith. Counsel for the Parties agree further that they will meet in person to discuss any disagreements they may have regarding the need for modification of the consent decree prior to either party filing any motion to modify the injunction. 60. If any provision or term of this Agreement is judicially determined to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such provision shall still be enforced to the maximum extent possible given the intent of the Parties as expressed within the four comers of this Agreement. If such provision or term cannot be so enforced, such provision or term shall be severed from the Agreement and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been part of the Agreement. Furthennore,
in lieu of any such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision or tenn there shall be added as a
21

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 23 of 32

part of this Agreement another provision or term as similar to the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision as may be possible.
61. This Agreement may be executed by the Parties in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

1Ls.~ /UW
jomeBell

fc- 9-2.01 e
Date

James Sheppard

Date

lhar.f~z.e... 11gtr,'S

Marteze Harris

Date

Demonic Butler

!TJ,~,h a~l ~w5

~,. 'cky

/;; %

rt

-

~ifwrJJb-,

ermale Walker

Date
to-7-lh
Date
Date
fe-7-lb
Date

0
ar
MacArthur Justice Center at the University ofMississippi School of Law

Alec Karakatsanis

Date

Equal Justice Under Law

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

22

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 24 of 32

part of this Agreement another provision or tenn as similar to the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision as may be possible.
61. This Agreement may be executed by the Parties in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

Jerome Bell
~~
Marteze Harris
Dornonic Butler
Michael Davis
Ricky Lambert
Jerrnale Walker PLAINTIFFS
Cliff Johnson Jake Howard MacArthur Justice Center at the University of Mississippi School of Law
Alec Karakatsanis Equal Justice Under Law COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

Date Date Date Date Date
Date
Date

22

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 25 of 32

part of this Agreement another provision or tenn as similar to the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision as may be possible.
61. This Agreement may be executed by the Parties in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

Jerome Bell
James Sheppard
Marteze Harris
Domonic Butler
Michael Davis
Ricky Lambert
Jermale Walker PI.AINTIFFS
Cliff Johnson Jake Howard MacArthur Justice Center at the University of Mississippi School of Law

Date Date Date Date Date Date Date
Date

Alec Karakatsanis

Date

Equal Justice Under Law

22

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 26 of 32

~of ityofJac~

~~ A

~~

( ;1l aJOine

•

Gail Lowery

LaShundra Jackson-Winters

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS

.~ t.lnt Ij[~,_____

23

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 27 of 32

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

AFFIDA VJT OF SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP

Municipal Court of Jackso 327 E. Pascagoula Street, Jackson,

n. Mississipp Mississippi 39201

i

CCOITUYNOTFYJOAFCKHSINODNS

CASE NUMBER: - - - - - - - - - -

IN

THE Manldpll Coarc COURT
(Cin:uit, Dislricl,or M111icipal}

OF

----=~-T..;..;.;:h~e ~C.;.;lty~O;..;.f-::;:J:;;.ac;.;:k~IF-On~-(Name of County or Municipality

,

MISSISSIPPI

--~C;..;.lcy~o~f-J~ae_b_a__n __
Pialntiff(li)

v·---------~~~~---------
Dcfcndaot(s)

SECTION J. • IDENTIFICATION

p oyer

SECTION ll. - ASSISTANCE BENEFITS
Do you or anyone n:sidinl ia your household receive benefits mun any oflhc followiJig soun:es? (If so. please check those which apply).

OAFDC [JFoodStamps CJSSI

0Medicaid ClOthcr - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SECTION Ill.- INCOMEfEXPENSE STATEMENT

MONTHLY GROSS INCOME

AMOUNT

Monthly GronlDcomc

s

Spouse's Monthly Onus lnoome

$

OCher Eaminaa (Boouses, Interest, etc} s

Coatribati11111 fi'OIII O~cr People 10 Yotr Hotldlald s

UIICIIIploJmcl. Weam Coa,. Social Sarity, RetileiDeal s

01Mrllcoac(bo~9_

$

TOTALMOHJHLY GlOSS INCOME

s

GROSS MONTHLY s

LESS MOIITBLYIXPENSES_s_ __

~ JISPOSAILE IIO!ITHLY lftCDM£ ..;;s_ __

SECTION IV." LIOUm ASSETS: LIQUID ASSETS:
Cab aa HaDd/lld (oreVIi~ I10Cb, bollds, cds, ect}
Eqliryill RaJ £siR (nkleofJRQPCrty lea wbaf )'01 owe) Eqtlty ita pcnouJ property, etc (I&ICb u nlua ofJIIIIS,

AMOUNT
$
s

MONTHLY EXPENSES

Living Expeoscs

$

Rent/ Mort&ase

$

TOld Utilities: Ou, Electricity, Water, cl; $

Food

$

Clothing

$

Hcallh Care I Medical

s

Ca- Paymcal(s)I Trwpoi1ali011 Exp:m.es s

Loan Payments

s

Credit Card Paymellts

s

Educalional/ f.mlloymcat Expenses s

Olber (be specifiC)

$

TOTAL UOHTBLV EXPIKSIS

Qild~- ot.ll"

Plymca~S

Exceptional Expeoses

AMOUNT
s
$
$

motor vehicles, ltcno, Nmiturejewelry s

Olkr, '"spcci&J

s

Doyoa OWD lllJtllill&else ofvalue? If10 describe s

TOTAL LIQUID ASSETS s

SECTION V. • AJ!IIIDAVIT/RIQUIST SoiIWlnrdnIfaI~taIlhIofaIoabwarnaal~oem~ddradpntalfaIlIlolIvitnIrIaim,plblemrtldrlhltaaabeyiteCateCliDauaaUe&rbtt1!tjH1&tco2poW1ptmWOImIyeIUnefiIiiI"tInIIoSIaIInllIIfhcItDielaeClpl)l'scltltmodalta"nuql:li•nilieifciiracCotoImImIfIpIyaIConc,dytuburcsrroc,el:yQon.u"tCnf)eimnaIaanuyntoc1h1ir1aodql1re11iirnzl:atemotult:vhsIOe.er1Jcii1lo~l&'waiDUntdfooaornnrptMalaiaStdi lacaofhulDlatltchpaforeotreaivszlialedDeded1dUrJc.bapptyterNnemzeaao1en.not to !Jamtfiy\r YaCretIbI~ 1tc1or1uaNtbaopdcploaicDi!raD)st'acqlracaun;acdaiioDt11IInCa11baId.

THE

DAYOF----------.20-

Affianr.s S•aa•nne

Judsc I Clerk I Notaey

Priii1 or Type Nllilc

APPENDIX
1

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 28 of 32

APPENDIX 2A- RECOGNIZANCE BOND FORM (Police Use- "Field Release")
CONDITIONS OF SIGNATURE/RECOGNIZANCE BOND(S) IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
NruneofDefundMt: _______________________________________________
You have been arrested for the folJowing alleged offense(s): -------------------

You are being released on your promise to comply with the following conditions:

1. You must appear before the City of Jackson Municipal Court, 327 East Pascagoula

Street, Jackson, Mississippi on the __ day of

, at 9:00

a.m.

2. You must also appear before the City of Jackson Municipal Court, as ordered by the Court, for any subsequent hearings

Your failure to follow the conditions set forth above may result in your arrest and temporary detention. Within 48 hours of being detained for an alleged failure to comply with the conditions set forth above, you shall be offered an opportunity to rebut the allegations or to demonstrate good cause for your non-compliance at a hearing before the Municipal Court. If no hearing is held within 48 hours of your detention, you shall be released with instructions to appear before the Municipal Court on a specified date. If the Municipal Court fmds by a preponderance of the evidence that you willfully violated one or more of the conditions set forth above, without good cause, your signature/recognizance bond may be revoked and you may be detained until your case reaches disposition.

Acknowledgment of Bond Conditions

I,

, the Defendant, hereby acknowledge

that the conditions set forth above have been explained to me Md I agree to abide by them. I

understand that any violation of the conditions set forth above may result in my recognizance

bond being revoked and my detention until the next court date following my arrest.

DEFENDANT

DATE

APPENDIX
2A

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 29 of 32

APPENDIX 2B- RECOGNIZANCE BOND FORM (Court Use)

CONDITIONS OF SIGNATURE/RECOGNIZANCE BOND(S) IN THE

MUNICIPAL COURT OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI

I

I

NwneofDerend~t: __________________________________________________

You have been arrested for the following alleged offense(s): -----------------------

You are being released on your promise to comply with the following conditions:

1. You must appear before the City of Jackson Municipal Court, 327 East Pascagoula

Street, Jackson, Mississippi on the __ day of

, at 9:00

a.m.

2. You must also appear before the City of Jackson Municipal Court, as ordered by the Court, for ~y subsequent hearings.

3. You must a l s o : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Your failure to follow the conditions set forth above may result in your arrest and temporary detention. Within 48 hours of being detained for an alleged failure to comply with the conditions set forth above, you shall be offered an opportunity to rebut the allegations or to demonstrate good cause for your non-compliance at a hearing before the Municipal Court. If no hearing is held within 48 hours of your detention, you shall be released with instructions to appear before the Municipal Court on a specified date. If the Municipal Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that you willfully violated one or more of the conditions set forth above, without good cause, your signature/recognizam:e bond may be revoked and you may be detained until your case reaches disposition.
At any time, you may request a hearing to modify the above-listed conditions by contacting Court Services at: [INSERT PHONE NUMBER HERE).
1 The condition(s) listed in paragraph 3 may be modified at any appearance before the Municipal Court upon a showing of good cause by the Defendant or by request of an alleged victim(s). If a NO CONTACT or STAY AWAY condition prevents you from accessing necessary personal items, you may request an opportunity to collect your personal items with an escort from the City ofJackson Police Department.
1
APPENDIX
2R

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 30 of 32

Acknowledgment of Bond Conditions

I,

, the Defendant, hereby acknowledge

that the conditions set forth above have been explained to me and I agree to abide by them. I

understand that any violation of the conditions set forth above may result in my recognizance

bond being revoked and my detention until the next court date following my arrest.

DEFENDANT

DATE

2

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 31 of 32

IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI

CITY OF JACKSON
v.

Case No. - - - - -

UNSECURED APPEARANCE BOND This is an unsecured bond in the amount of$_ _ _ _ _ _ _ (not to exceed $1,000).

I,

(defendant), agree to follow the orders of this court, and I further

agree that this bond may be forfeited if I fail:

1. to appear for court proceedings; or 2. to comply with the conditions set forth in the Recognizance Bond entered by this
court.

I understand that if I comply with the above conditions, this bond will be void. I further understand that if I willfully fail to comply with the above conditions, the court may enter a
judgment against me for the amount stated. The Court may order this appearance bond ended at any time. This bond will be satisfied and terminated upon 1) order of the Court; 2) appearance by the defendant as required under the Recognizance Bond; or 3) resolution of the charges against the defendant

I, the defendant, have read this Appearance Bond and have either read all the conditions of release set by the court or had them explained to me. I agree to this Appearance Bond.

Date

Defendant's Signature

Mailing Address

City State Zip

Home Phone I Work Phone

Place ofEmployment

APPENDIX
~

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 14 Filed 06/20/16 Page 32 of 32

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

On

, 20_, the defendant named above personally appeared in

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, Mississippi and acknowledged that this bond was signed freely and

voluntarily for the purposes stated therein.

Municipal Court Clerk

2

 
 Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 33

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SO UTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

NORTHERN DIVISION

)

JEROME BELL, JAMES SHEPPARD, )

MARTEZE HARRI S, DOM ON IC

)

'? ......''"
~015 1

BUTLER, MICHAEL DAV IS, RICKY ) LAMBERT, JARJvlALE WALKER, et a/. )

ARTHUR JOHN~TON

BY

DEPUTY

)

Pl a intiffs ,

)

)

v.

) Case No. "3: \"":>·cV·l3;i TS k Rt\W

)

(CLASS ACTION)

THE CITY OF JACKSON,

)

M ISS ISS IPPI

)

)

Defendant.

)

--------------------------- )

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Introduction

The Plaintiffs in thi s case are impoverished people who were incarcerated by the

Defendant City of Jackson, Mi ssissippi (" the City") because they were unable to pay debts

allegedly owed to the City for traffi c violati ons and other misdemeanor offenses. In each case,

the City required the Plaintiff to pay all (or a large part) of his debt immediately or be incarcerated at the Hinds County Jail or the Hinds County Penal Farm. 1 In the language of the

City' s municipal court, the Pl ainti ffs were ordered to "pay or stay." Due to their poverty, the

Plaintiffs were unable to pay the amounts of money demanded by the City and thus were

required to stay in jail. No ne of the Pl aintiffs were afforded the inquiry into their ability to pay

that is required by the United States Constituti on and Mississippi law. Once incarcerated, the

Plaintiffs were told that they could " work off ' their fines at the rate of $5 8.00 per day, while

1 Hinds County operates two jails, one in Jackson, Mississippi and one in Raymond, Miss iss ippi . In this Complaint, the phrase " Hinds County Jail" or "Jail" is used to refer to both facilities. T he Hinds County Penal Farm, a third secure detention facility operated by the County, is also located in Raymond, Mississippi.

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 2 of 33
those who were unable to work were told that they must "sit out" their fines at the rate of $25.00 per day.
The treatment of the Plaintiffs is representative of the systemic illegality perpetrated by the City against some of its poorest residents. The City, as a matter of policy and practice, engages in the same conduct against numerous poor people on a daily basis, unlawfully incarcerating them if they are too poor to pay the fines, fees, and costs arising from traffic violations and other misdemeanor offenses. These practices - and the modem day debtors' prison they have created - have no place in our society.
By and through their attorneys and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to end and remedy the City's policies and practices, which violate United States and Mississippi law, and money damages to compensate them for the time they spent unlawfully incarcerated at the jail or penal farm.
Nature of the Action2 1. It is the policy and practice of the Defendant City of Jackson to incarcerate people when they cannot afford to pay debts owed to the City for traffic violations and other misdemeanor offenses without conducting any inquiry into the person's ability to pay and without considering alternatives to imprisonment as required by United States and Mississippi law. 2. It is the policy and practice of the City to incarcerate indigent people for their debts without providing adequate counsel to represent them during court proceedings. 3. It is the policy and practice of the City to incarcerate people in the Hinds County Jail or the Hinds County Penal Farm to "sit out" their debts at the rate of $25.00 per day and to
2 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.
2

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 3 of 33

coerce inmates into performing physical labor by telling them that the length of their

incarceration will be reduced if they "work off' their debts at the rate of$58.00 per day.

4. It is the policy and practice of the City to use incarceration, and the threat of

incarceration, to coerce payments from impoverished debtors and their family and friends. The

City's prosecutors and other officials call this scheme the City's "pay or stay" policy.

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 Sixth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

7.

Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Parties

8.

Plaintiff Jerome Bell is a 58-year-old resident of Jackson, Mississippi; James

Sheppard is a 61-year-old resident of Jackson, Mississippi; Marteze Harris (aka Martez Harris) is

a 25-year-old resident of Jackson, Mississippi; Domonic Butler is a 27-year-old resident of

Jackson, Mississippi; Michael Davis is a 34-year-old resident of Jackson, Mississippi; Ricky

Lambert is a 41-year-old resident of Flowood, Mississippi; and, Jarmale Walker (aka Jermale

Walker) is a 26-year-old resident of Jackson, Mississippi. These Named Plaintiffs represent

themselves as individuals and a Class of similarly situated people all subject to the City's illegal

debt-collection scheme.

9. Defendant City of Jackson is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Mississippi, that operates the Jackson Municipal Court and employs the City

prosecutors and other officials and employees who implement the City's "pay or stay" scheme,

3

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 4 of 33
and that collects debts from the fines, fees, and costs assessed for traffic violations and misdemeanor convictions in its Municipal Court.
Factual Background A. The Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Jerome Bell 10. Jerome Bell is a 58-year-old individual with physical disabilities. He is a resident of Jackson, Mississippi. 11. On or about July 10, 2015, Mr. Bell was arrested and brought to the City's Municipal Court because he allegedly owed the City money for traffic violations and related fines, fees, and costs. At the Municipal Court, the City's prosecutor demanded that Mr. Bell pay $4,759.00 or go to jail. 12. Mr. Bell is disabled and therefore unable to work. Mr. Bell's only income is a small monthly check that he receives through the Social Security and Supplemental Security Income disability program. He uses his limited income to support himself, his partner, and her teenage grandson. Based on his estimated income in 2014, Mr. Bell was subsisting below the federal poverty level even for a household of one. Indeed, Mr. Bell relies on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or "food stamps") and a monthly "Senior Citizen box" from a local church to feed himself and his family. Mr. Bell does not own a house, car, or any other significant assets. 13. Consistent with standard policy and practice, the City's public defender did not meet with Mr. Bell prior to or during the hearing to discuss the allegations and charges against him or his ability to pay. The City's public defender made no attempt to review the alleged charges, fines, fees, and costs or Mr. Bell's payment history or to determine whether the records
4

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 5 of 33
relied upon by the City were accurate. The City's public defender, pursuant to standard policy and practice, made no request that the court consider Mr. Bell's ability to pay his alleged debts.
14. Pursuant to standard policy and practice, neither the City's prosecutor nor the City's municipal court judge made any inquiry into Mr. Bell's ability to pay or into any alternatives to imprisonment as required by United States and Mississippi law. Instead, the prosecutor requested and the judge ordered that Mr. Bell "pay or stay." Because Mr. Bell was
unable to pay the thousands of dollars demanded by the City, he was incarcerated. See Ex. A.
15. The City's public defender did not contest the lawfulness of the "pay or stay" order or otherwise object to the treatment of Mr. Bell.
16. Due to his disabilities, Mr. Bell was unable to "work off' his fines at the County Penal Farm. The penal farm was also unable to provide Mr. Bell with adequate medical care, and thus he was incarcerated at the dangerous and overcrowded Hinds County Jail.3 For more than twenty (20) days, Mr. Bell slept on the concrete floor of a holding cell in the booking unit of the jail with no mattress or cushion of any sort.4
17. Mr. Bell began sitting out his debt at the jail at the rate of $25.00 per day. At that rate, he would have spent approximately 190 days in jail before he was released. If not for his disabilities, Mr. Bell would have been allowed by the City to "work off' his debt at the penal farm at the rate of$58.00 per day, which would have taken him approximately 82 days.
3 On May 21, 2015, the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice notified the Hinds County Board of Supervisors and Hinds County SheriffTyrone Lewis that it had concluded that "[c]onstiutional deficiencies at the Jail violate prisoners' Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights." DOJ, Investigation of Hinds County Detention Center, 2 (May 21, 20 15), available at http://www.justice.gov/file/440946/download (hereinafter "DOJ Investigation"). Among other things, the DOJ noted that "[t]he Jail does not provide prisoners with reasonable safety and minimum levels of protection from violence by other prisoners and staff members." /d. at 2. 4 Mr. Bell was moved to a housing unit and provided with a bed only after complaints were made by undersigned counsel.
5

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 6 of 33
18. On August 14,2015- thirty-five days after Mr. Bell was imprisoned at the jailundersigned counsel requested that one of the City's municipal court judges reconsider Mr. Bell's incarceration. Through undersigned counsel, Mr. Bell argued that he was too poor to pay his debt and thus that the City must offer him an opportunity to perform public service or some other alternative to payment or incarceration. Because of the City's policies and practices, this was the first time that any inquiry was made into Mr. Bell's ability to pay. The City's municipal court judge eventually released Mr. Bell and ordered him to complete more than 500 hours of public service to satisfy his debt.
19. On the same day that the court ordered Mr. Bell's release, undersigned counsel, Mr. Bell, and other witnesses observed the City's municipal court judge continuing- at the City Prosecutor's request - to incarcerate people who were too poor to pay their debts without any meaningful inquiry into their ability to pay.
20. When Mr. Bell was ordered to complete more than 500 hours of public service to satisfy his debt, he specifically requested a public service work program assignment that would make accommodations for his disabilities. The City's municipal court judge indicated that appropriate accommodations would be made. However, when Mr. Bell reported for public service on September 1, 20 15, he was told that he would be required to perform strenuous physical labor. There were no accommodations made for his disability.
21. Also on September 1, 2015, Mr. Bell appeared before the same municipal court judge who had ordered him to perform public service and again requested an assignment that makes accommodations for his disability. The municipal court judge insisted that the City had no obligation to offer the option of public service to disabled people and - over Mr. Bell's
6

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 7 of 33
objections that he was too poor to pay - placed him on a payment plan. The judge did not explain the terms of the payment plan.
22. Mr. Bell was placed on a $25.00 per month payment plan by one of the City's municipal court clerks. The City's clerk directed Mr. Bell to sign an electronic signature pad without any explanation of what he was signing and without providing him an opportunity to view the "Time Payment Agreement" to which his electronic signature would ultimately be affixed. The City's clerk then printed the "Time Payment Agreement," which included Mr. Bell's electronic signature, and gave Mr. Bell a copy. At no point did the City's clerk explain the terms of the agreement to Mr. Bell.
Plaintiff James Sheppard 23. Mr. James Sheppard is a 61-year-old individual with physical disabilities. He is a resident of Jackson, Mississippi. 24. On or about July 4, 2015, Mr. Sheppard was arrested for possession of an open container of alcohol and possession of marijuana. He was brought to the City's Municipal Court on July 6, 2015. 25. At the Municipal Court, the City's prosecutor alleged that Mr. Sheppard owed $2,882.50 related to traffic violations in 2003 and possession of drug paraphernalia in 2009. The City's prosecutor demanded that Mr. Sheppard pay $2,882.50 or go to jail. 26. Mr. Sheppard is hard of hearing. No accommodations were made to ensure that he understood the court proceedings. 27. Mr. Sheppard is disabled and therefore unable to work. On the date Mr. Sheppard was brought to the City's Municipal Court, his only income was a small monthly check that he receives through the Social Security and Supplemental Security Income disability program.
7

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 8 of 33
Given his limited income, Mr. Sheppard was subsisting below the federal poverty level. Indeed, Mr. Sheppard relied on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or "food stamps") to feed himself. Mr. Sheppard does not own a house, car, or any other significant assets.
28. Consistent with standard policy and practice, the City's public defender did not meet with Mr. Sheppard prior to or during the hearing to discuss the allegations and charges against him or his ability to pay. The City's public defender made no attempt to review the alleged charges, fines, fees, and costs or to determine whether the records relied upon by the City were accurate. The City's public defender, pursuant to standard policy and practice, made no request that the court consider Mr. Sheppard's ability to pay his alleged debts.
29. Pursuant to standard policy and practice, neither the City's prosecutor nor the City's municipal court judge made any inquiry into Mr. Sheppard's ability to pay or into any alternatives to imprisonment as required by United States and Mississippi law. Instead, the prosecutor requested and the judge ordered that Mr. Sheppard "pay or stay." Because Mr. Sheppard was unable to pay the thousands of dollars demanded by the City, he was incarcerated.
See Ex. B.
30. The City's public defender did not contest the lawfulness of the "pay or stay" order or otherwise object to the treatment of Mr. Sheppard.
31. Due to his disabilities, Mr. Sheppard was unable to work off his fines at the County Penal Farm. The penal farm was also unable to provide Mr. Sheppard with adequate medical care, and thus he was incarcerated at the dangerous and overcrowded Hinds County Jail.
8

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 9 of 33
For more than twenty-five (25) days, Mr. Sheppard -like Mr. Bell- slept on the concrete floor of a holding cell in the booking unit of the jail without a mattress or cushion of any sort. 5
32. Mr. Sheppard began sitting out his debt at the jail at the rate of $25.00 per day. At that rate, he would have spent approximately 115 days in jail before he was released. If not for his disabilities, Mr. Sheppard would have been allowed by the City to work off his debt at the penal farm at the rate of $58.00 per day, which would have taken him approximately 50 days.
33. On August 28, 2015 -fifty-three days after Mr. Sheppard was imprisoned at the jail- undersigned counsel requested that one of the City's municipal court judges reconsider Mr. Sheppard's incarceration. Through undersigned counsel, Mr. Sheppard argued that he was too poor to pay his debt in full, and thus that the City must offer him some alternative way to satisfy his debt. Because of the City's policies and practices, this was the first time that any inquiry was made into Mr. Sheppard's ability to pay. The City's municipal court judge eventually ordered that Mr. Sheppard be released and placed him on a $25.00 per month payment plan. Mr. Sheppard was not brought to the Municipal Court for the hearing and no written copy of the payment plan or court order was provided to Mr. Sheppard at the time of his release.
Plaintiff Marteze Harris 34. Marteze Harris is a 25-year-old resident of Jackson, Mississippi. 35. On or about July 23, 2015, Mr. Harris was arrested and brought to the City's Municipal Court. At the Municipal Court, the City's prosecutor alleged that Mr. Harris owed $5,650.00 related to traffic violations and misdemeanor offenses. 36. The City's prosecutor demanded that Mr. Harris pay the $5,650.00 in full or go to jail.
5 Like Mr. Bell, Mr. Sheppard was moved to a housing unit and provided with a bed only after complaints were made by undersigned counsel.
9

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 10 of 33
37. On July 23, 2015, Mr. Harris was unemployed. He had not had a job, or any steady source of income, since 2010. Mr. Harris did not have a checking account, a savings account, or any significant assets. Prior to his arrest, he was living with his mother and his sister and was helping to care for his disabled niece.
38. Consistent with standard policy and practice, the City's public defender did not meet with Mr. Harris prior to or during the hearing to discuss the allegations and charges against him or his ability to pay. The City's public defender made no attempt to review the alleged charges, fines, fees, and costs or to determine whether the records relied upon by the City were accurate. The City's public defender, pursuant to standard policy and practice, made no request that the court consider Mr. Harris' ability to pay.
39. Pursuant to standard policy and practice, neither the City's prosecutor nor the City's municipal court judge made any inquiry into Mr. Harris' ability to pay or into any alternatives to imprisonment as required by United States and Mississippi law. Instead, the prosecutor requested and the judge ordered that Mr. Harris "pay or stay." Because Mr. Harris
was unable to pay the thousands of dollars demanded by the City, he was incarcerated. See Ex.
c.
40. The City's public defender did not contest the lawfulness of the "pay or stay" order or otherwise object to the treatment of Mr. Harris.
41. Mr. Harris began "working off' his debt at the penal farm at the rate of$58.00 per day. At that rate, he would have spent at least 97 days in jail before he was released.6
42. On August 24, 2015 - more than a month after Mr. Harris was imprisoned at the penal farm - undersigned counsel requested that one of the City's municipal court judges
6 On days that a person does not work - for example, on Saturday and Sunday - or is unable to work, he is given only $25.00 credit.
10

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 11 of 33
reconsider Mr. Harris' incarceration. Through undersigned counsel, Mr. Harris argued that he was too poor to pay his debt and thus that the City must offer him an opportunity to perform public service or some other alternative to payment or incarceration. Because of the City's policies and practices, this was the first time that any inquiry was made into Mr. Harris' ability to pay. Despite Mr. Harris' poverty, the City's prosecutor argued (again) that he should remain in jail and continue to "work off' off his debt. The municipal court judge declined to release Mr. Harris.
43. Two days later, on August 26, 2015, undersigned counsel asked another municipal court judge to reconsider Mr. Harris' incarceration. Once again, through undersigned counsel, Mr. Harris proffered evidence of his indigence and argued that he was too poor to pay his debt and thus that the City must offer him an opportunity to perform public service or some other alternative to payment or incarceration. Once again, despite Mr. Harris' poverty, the City's prosecutor argued that he should remain in jail and continue to "work off' off his debt. This time, the judge released Mr. Harris and ordered him to satisfy his debt through the City's public service work program.
44. Initially, the Court informed Mr. Harris that he had "worked off' more than $1,000.00 of his $5,650.00 debt at the penal farm. Indeed, at $58.00 per day, Mr. Harris would have worked off nearly $1,800.00 of his debt in the month he spent at the farm. However, the "Public Service Work Agreement" provided to Mr. Harris by one of the City's clerks alleges that he owes $5,138.60. See Ex. D. When undersigned counsel challenged this amount, the clerk informed the Municipal Court judge that she had "found some more fines." The judge refused to consider Mr. Harris' objection to the amount because, according to the judge, the case had already taken up "too much of [his] time."
11

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 12 of 33
Plaintiff Domonic Butler 45. Demonic Butler is a 27-year-old resident of Jackson, Mississippi. 46. On or about June 22, 2015, Mr. Butler was arrested and brought to the City's Municipal Court. At the Municipal Court, the City's prosecutor alleged that Mr. Butler owed $6,775.01 for traffic violations and a misdemeanor offense. 47. The City's prosecutor demanded that Mr. Butler pay the $6,775.01 in full or go to jail. 48. Mr. Butler was unemployed at the time of his arrest and had no source of income. Mr. Butler, his partner, and their 1-year-old child were living with Mr. Butler's mother. Mr. Butler does not own a house, a car, or any other significant assets. 49. Consistent with standard policy and practice, the City's public defender did not meet with Mr. Butler prior to or during the hearing to discuss the allegations and charges against him or his ability to pay. The City's public defender made no attempt to review the alleged charges, fines, fees, and costs or to determine whether the records relied upon by the City were accurate. The City's public defender, pursuant to standard policy and practice, made no request that the court consider Mr. Butler's ability to pay his alleged debts. 50. Pursuant to standard policy and practice, neither the City's prosecutor nor the City's municipal court judge made any inquiry into Mr. Butler's ability to pay or into any alternatives to imprisonment as required by United States and Mississippi law. Instead, the prosecutor requested and the judge ordered that Mr. Butler "pay or stay." Because Mr. Butler
was unable to pay the thousands of dollars demanded by the City, he was incarcerated. See Ex. E.
12

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 13 of 33
51. The City's public defender did not contest the lawfulness of the "pay or stay" order or otherwise object to the treatment of Mr. Butler.
52. Mr. Butler initially began "working off' his debt at the penal farm at the rate of $58.00 per day. However, as a result of a health condition, Mr. Butler had to be transported to a hospital after his first day of work and was removed from the work crew. Mr. Butler then began "sitting out" his debt at the penal farm at the rate of $25.00 per day. He was eventually given a new work assignment and again began "working off' his debts. Even at the rate of $58.00 per day, Mr. Butler would have served at least I I6 days in jail before he was released.
53. On September 17, 20I5- nearly three (3) months after Mr. Butler was imprisoned at the penal farm - undersigned counsel requested that one of the City's municipal court judges reconsider Mr. Butler's incarceration. Through undersigned counsel, Mr. Butler argued that he was too poor to pay his debt and thus that the City must offer him an opportunity to perform public service or some other alternative to payment or incarceration. Because of the City's policies and practices, this was the first time that any inquiry was made into Mr. Butler's ability to pay. The City's municipal court judge eventually released Mr. Butler and ordered him to complete more than 400 hours of public service to satisfy his debts.
Plaintiff Michael Davis 54. Michael Davis is a 34-year-old individual with a physical disability. He is a resident of Jackson, Mississippi. 55. On or about April I3, 20 I5, Mr. Davis was arrested and brought to the City's Municipal Court. At the Municipal Court, the City's prosecutor alleged that Mr. Davis owed $19,403.8 I for traffic violations and misdemeanor offenses.
I3

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 14 of 33

56. to jail.

The City's prosecutor demanded that Mr. Davis pay the $19,430.81 in full or go

57. On the date Mr. Davis was brought to the City's Municipal Court, his only income was a small monthly check that he receives through the Social Security and Supplemental Security Income disability program. Given his limited income, Mr. Davis was subsisting below the federal poverty level. Mr. Davis does not own a house, a car, or any other significant assets.

58. Consistent with standard policy and practice, the City's public defender did not meet with Mr. Davis prior to or during the hearing to discuss the allegations and charges against him or his ability to pay. The City's public defender made no attempt to review the alleged charges, fines, fees, and costs or to determine whether the records relied upon by the City were accurate. The City's public defender, pursuant to standard policy and practice, made no request that the court consider Mr. Davis' ability to pay his alleged debts.
59. Pursuant to standard policy and practice, neither the City's prosecutor nor the City's municipal court judge made any inquiry into Mr. Davis' ability to pay or into any alternatives to imprisonment as required by United States and Mississippi law. Instead, the prosecutor requested and the judge ordered that Mr. Davis "pay or stay." Because Mr. Davis was unable to pay the thousands of dollars demanded by the City, he was incarcerated. See Ex.

60. The City's public defender did not contest the lawfulness of the "pay or stay" order or otherwise object to the treatment of Mr. Davis.

7 Mr. Davis was also sentenced to serve 210 days in prison. However, by earning administrative reductions, Mr. Davis completed that sentence well before he was released from jail.
14

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 15 of 33
61. Mr. Davis began "working off' his debt at the penal farm at the rate of$58.00 per day. At that rate, he would have spent at least 335 days in jail before he was released.
62. On September 17, 2015 - more than six (6) months after Mr. Davis was imprisoned at the penal farm - undersigned counsel requested that one of the City's municipal court judges reconsider Mr. Davis' incarceration. Through undersigned counsel, Mr. Davis argued that he was too poor to pay his debt and thus that the City must offer him an opportunity to perform public service or some other alternative to payment or incarceration. Because of the City's policies and practices, this was the first time that any inquiry was made into Mr. Davis's ability to pay. The City's municipal court judge subsequently ordered that Mr. Davis be released and placed him on a $25.00 per month payment plan.
Plaintiff Ricky Lambert 63. Ricky Lambert is a 41-year-old resident of Flowood, Mississippi. 64. On or about August 14,2015, Mr. Lambert was arrested and brought to the City's Municipal Court because he allegedly owed the City money for traffic violations, including a
2010 in absentia conviction for driving under the influence. 65. At the Municipal Court, the City's prosecutor demanded that Mr. Lambert pay
$2,800.23 or go to jail. 66. Mr. Lambert did not have a steady source of income at the time of his arrest. He
does not have any cash, a checking account, a savings account, or any significant assets. He and his partner were living with her parents.
67. Consistent with standard policy and practice, the City's public defender did not meet with Mr. Lambert prior to or during the hearing to discuss the allegations and charges against him or his ability to pay. The City's public defender made no attempt to review the
15

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 16 of 33
alleged charges, fines, fees, and costs or to determine whether the records relied upon by the City were accurate. The City's public defender, pursuant to standard policy and practice, made no request that the court consider Mr. Lambert's ability to pay his alleged debts.
68. Pursuant to standard policy and practice, neither the City's prosecutor nor the City's municipal court judge made any inquiry into Mr. Lambert's ability to pay or into any alternatives to imprisonment as required by United States and Mississippi law. Instead, the prosecutor requested and the judge ordered that Mr. Lambert "pay or stay." Because Mr. Lambert was unable to pay the thousands of dollars demanded by the City, he was incarcerated.
See Ex. G.8
69. The City's public defender did not contest the lawfulness of the "pay or stay" order or otherwise object to the treatment of Mr. Lambert.
70. Mr. Lambert began "working off' his debt at the penal farm at the rate of $58.00 per day. At that rate, he would have spent at least 48 days in jail before he was released.
71. On September 17, 2015- more than a month Mr. Lambert was imprisoned at the penal farm - undersigned counsel requested that one of the City's municipal court judges reconsider Mr. Lambert's incarceration. Through undersigned counsel, Mr. Lambert argued that he was too poor to pay his debt and thus that the City must offer him an opportunity to perform public service or some other alternative to payment or incarceration. Because of the City's policies and practices, this was the first time that any inquiry was made into Mr. Lambert's ability to pay. The City's municipal court judge eventually released Mr. Lambert and ordered him to complete more than 250 hours of public service to satisfy his debt.
72. Mr. Lambert was placed on public service work program plan by one of the City's municipal court clerks. The City's clerk directed Mr. Lambert to sign an electric signature pad
8 Mr. Lambert was also sentenced to serve two (2) days in jail. 16

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 17 of 33
without any explanation of what he was signing and without providing him an opportunity to view the "Public Service Work Agreement" to which his electronic signature would ultimately be affixed. The City's clerk then printed the "Public Service Work Agreement," which included Mr. Lambert's electronic signature, and gave Mr. Lambert a copy.
73. The "Public Service Work Agreement" - which was provided to Mr. Lambert at approximately 11 :00 a.m. on September 17, 2015 - orders Mr. Lambert to report for service "on the 17th day of September, 2015 at 8:00 o'clock." Ex. H (emphasis in original). The agreement does not inform Mr. Lambert where to report. See id.9
Plaintiff Jarmale Walker 74. Jarmale Walker is a 26-year-old resident of Jackson, Mississippi. 75. Mr. Walker was arrested on or about July I 0, 2015. Three days later, on July 13, 2015, he was taken to the City's Municipal Court. 10 76. At the Municipal Court, the City's prosecutor demanded that Mr. Walker pay $1,199.65 for fines, fees and costs related to a traffic violation that he allegedly committed seven days after his sixteenth birthday in 2004. Alternatively, the prosecutor requested that the court incarcerate Mr. Walker. 77. On July 13, 2015, Mr. Walker was unemployed and had no cash, savings, or significant assets. Mr. Walker was also unemployed, and just a teenager, at the time of the 2004 traffic violation. 78. Consistent with standard policy and practice, the City's public defender did not meet with Mr. Walker prior to or during the hearing to discuss the allegations and charges
9 When undersigned counsel notified the clerk of these problems, she used an ink pen to change the reporting date to September 21 and wrote "Metro Center Mall" on the order to indicate where Mr. Lambert should report. 10 Mr. Walker was arrested for "disorderly conduct." With respect to this charge, he was released on his recognizance on July 13,2015.
17

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 18 of 33
against him or his ability to pay. The City's public defender made no attempt to review the alleged charges, fines, fees, and costs or to determine whether the records relied upon by the City were accurate. The City's public defender, pursuant to standard policy and practice, made no request that the court consider Mr. Walker's ability to pay.
79. Pursuant to standard policy and practice, neither the City's prosecutor nor the City's municipal court judge made any inquiry into Mr. Walker's ability to pay or into any alternatives to imprisonment as required by United States and Mississippi law. Instead, the prosecutor requested and the judge ordered that Mr. Walker "pay or stay." Because Mr. Walker was unable to pay the $1,199.65 demanded by the City, he was incarcerated. See Ex. I.
80. The City's public defender did not contest the lawfulness of the "pay or stay" order or otherwise object to the treatment of Mr. Walker.
81. Mr. Walker was incarcerated at the penal farm where, pursuant to the City's practice and policy, he "worked off' his fines at the rate of $58.00 per week day and $25.00 per weekend day. He was released from the penal farm on August 5, 2015, twenty-six (26) days after his arrest.
B. The Defendants' Policies and Practices 82. The treatment of the Plaintiffs was caused by and is representative of the City's policies and practices for collecting debts from the fines, fees, and costs assessed for traffic violations and other misdemeanor offenses committed within the jurisdiction of the City. 83. The City's policy and practice is to assess fines, fees, and costs upon a conviction for a traffic violation or other misdemeanor offense. 11 If the person can afford to pay the total debt, he or she is permitted to pay, the case is closed, and the person is free to go. If the person
11 The fees and costs include but are not limited to a "computer fee," "admin processing fee," "affidavit fee," "court constituent fee," "crime stopper fee," "computerized crime prevention fee," "municipal court enhancement," and "Jackson enhancement fee."
18

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 19 of 33
cannot afford to pay the total debt, the City's policy and practice is to put the person on a "payment plan" or send him or her directly to jail to "work off' or "sit out" his or her debt. There is no meaningful inquiry into the person's ability to pay or to comply with the terms of a payment plan.
84. The City, through one of its Municipal Court clerks, sets the terms of the payment plan. There is no meaningful inquiry into the person's ability to comply with the terms of the payment plan. Often, the clerk instructs the person to "sign" the agreement - through an electronic signature pad - before he or she is told what she is signing.
85. When a person on a payment plan fails to make a payment, he or she - pursuant to City policy and practice - is held in contempt without any meaningful inquiry into the reason that he or she failed to pay. Often, the person is not even present in court when he or she is held in contempt (i.e. he or she is held in contempt in absentia).
86. As a matter of policy and practice, the contempt procedures required by Mississippi law and the United States Constitution are not followed.
87. When a person is held in contempt for a failure to pay, the City's policy and practice is to add fines, fees, and costs to the debts already owed by the person, including a "contempt fee."
88. If, as often happens, the person is not present in court when he or she is found to be in contempt, a warrant is issued for the person's arrest. When an arrest warrant is issued and executed, the City adds fees and costs to the debts already owed by the person, including a "warrant fee."
89. When a person is brought into court after an arrest, the City's policy is to demand that they pay their total debt-or a significant portion of their debt-immediately or be
19

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 20 of 33
incarcerated in the Hinds County Jail or the Hinds County Penal Farm. Once incarcerated, the person "sits out" his or her debt at the rate of $25.00 per day or, if he or she is physically able, "works off' the debt at the rate of $58.00 per day. The City calls these orders "pay or stay" orders.
90. It is the policy and practice of the City, through its City Prosecutor, to request a "pay or stay" order regardless of a person's ability to pay. Even if a person is able to pay some portion of the debt, it is the policy and practice of the City, through its City Prosecutor, to request that a person be incarcerated unless he can pay all, or a large portion of, the debt. 12
91. The City's policy and practice is to conduct no inquiry into the person's ability to pay before requesting and issuing a "pay or stay" order. The policy and practice is to make no findings concerning ability to pay, alternatives to incarceration, whether the debt is valid or owed, or any other legally or constitutionally relevant question. Moreover, the cursory proceedings that precede a "pay or stay" order (commonly lasting only a few minutes) typically do not even identify the specific debts owed or the cases in which they were supposedly incurred and do not provide a debtor with a meaningful opportunity to contest the validity of the debt.
92. Although the City employs a public defender and although the public defender is often present in court during these proceedings, the public defender provides no meaningful representation to jailed debtors and fails entirely to ensure that the procedures required by federal and Mississippi law prior to incarcerating a person for nonpayment are followed. As a matter of policy and practice, the public defender fails to conduct an inquiry into the person's circumstances, fails to put on any evidence, fails to review the person's case file(s) and payment records, fails to object to the City's illegal requests, fails to inform alleged debtors of their rights,
12 In addition to demanding that a person pay his or her total debt, the City occasionally asks for "the standard 65%" of the total.
20

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 21 of 33
and fails to request hearings and inquiries that comply with basic constitutional rights. After a person is sent to jail, the public defender contracted by the City fails even to inform the person of their right to appeal.
93. The City's policy and practice of failing to appoint adequate counsel leaves indigent defendants without any meaningful opportunity to raise constitutional and statutory arguments and defenses against the experienced prosecutors who represent the City. Indigent defendants are also effectively left alone to perform tasks that are difficult even for experienced attorneys. These tasks include, but are not limited to: (a) navigating the origin and determining the validity of the fines, fees, and costs assessed by the City, a process that involves a complicated inquiry into the application of constitutional, state, and local law and an understanding of local practice and specialized terminology; and (b) making sense of the City's complex and disorganized record-keeping - which is often deficient in material ways that become apparent only after careful examination - to determine whether the debts alleged by the City are supported by the City's accounting documents, receipts, and other records. 13
94. The City's policy and practice of failing to appoint adequate counsel at all stages of Municipal Court proceedings - when combined with the City's policy and practice of convicting defendants in absentia - also means that the vast majority of those individuals subsequently jailed for failing to pay their debts were without constitutionally adequate representation (or any representation at all) for the underlying traffic, misdemeanor, and contempt proceedings in which the fines, fees, and costs were assessed.
95. The City also maintains a policy and practice of refusing to allow anyone other than an attorney to examine the Municipal Court's files, making it nearly impossible for indigent
13 In many cases, this involves examining court orders, accounting documents, receipts, and other records from multiple court files.
21

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 22 of 33
defendants to represent themselves in the Municipal Court or on appeal. Indeed, even attorneys have difficulty accessing the court's files. 14
96. The City's policies and practices have created a culture of fear among the City's poorest residents, who are afraid even to appear in the City's court to explain their indigence and inability to pay because they know they will be incarcerated by the City without any meaningful process.
97. The same fear motivates many very poor residents of the City to sacrifice expenditures on food, clothing, utilities, home repairs, and other basic necessities of life in order to scrape together money to pay their debt to the City.
98. The City's debt collection policies and practices also place enormous pressure on family members - who have no legal obligation to pay any money to the City - to come up with money to get their loved ones released from jail. Several City employees, including municipal court judges, have commented recently that incarceration is an effective method for extracting money from the family and friends of indigent defendants.
Class Action Allegations 99. Plaintiffs bring this Class action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, for the purpose of asserting the claims alleged in this Complaint on a common basis. 100. A class action is a superior means, and the only practicable means, by which Plaintiffs and unknown Class members can challenge the City's unlawful debt-collection scheme. 101. This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a Class action pursuant
14 Numerous Municipal Court clerks and other employees refused to allow undersigned counsel an opportunity to review the named Plaintiffs' Municipal Court files. The Municipal Court administrator has acknowledged that there is no established policy for providing copies of public court files to attorneys, defendants or interested members of the public.
22

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 23 of 33
to Rule 23(a)(l)-(4), Rule 23(b)(2), and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 102. This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy
requirements of those provisions. I03. The Plaintiffs propose two Classes: a Declaratory and Injunctive Class and a
Damages Class. The Declaratory and Injunctive Class is defined as: All persons who currently owe or who will incur debts to the City of Jackson from fines, fees, and costs arising from cases in the City's Municipal Court. The Damages Class is defined as: All persons who are and were incarcerated by the City for non-payment of debts from fines, fees, and costs arising from cases in the City's Municipal Court.
A. Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(l) 104. The City has incarcerated many hundreds of its residents for non-payment of debts in each of the past several years. 105. The City followed and follows the same debt-collection policies, practices, and procedures to incarcerate the Class members. For example, pursuant to the City's policies and practices, those incarcerated by the City for non-payment did not receive meaningful inquiries into their ability to pay or adequate representation by counsel as required by United States and Mississippi law. Pursuant to the City's practices and policies, no determinations of indigence or evaluations of alternatives to incarceration were made, and the City provided none of the relevant federal and state protections for debtors. All of those jailed are informed of the City's policy of requiring them to sit out their debts at $25.00 per day or work off their debts at $58.00 per day. 106. Those who still owe debts to the City or who will incur such debts will be subjected to the same ongoing policies and practices absent the relief sought in this Complaint.
23

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 24 of 33
B. Commonality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2).
107. 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 Plaintiffs seek relief concerning
whether the City's policies and practices violated their rights and relief mandating the City to
change its policies and practices so that the Plaintiffs' rights will be protected in the future.
108. Among the most important, but not the only, common questions of fact are:
• Whether the City has a policy and practice of failing to conduct meaningful inquiries into the ability of a person to pay before ordering the person's incarceration for non-payment of fines, fees, and costs;
• Whether the City has a policy and practice of having debtors sit out their debts at the jail or penal farm at the rate of $25.00 per day, or work off their debts at the rate of$58.00 per day;
• Whether the City provides notice to debtors that their ability to pay will be a relevant issue at the hearings at which they are jailed and whether the City makes findings concerning ability to pay and alternatives to incarceration;
• What procedural mechanisms, if any, the City uses as matter of policy and practice to determine indigence and ability to pay;
• Whether the City applies state procedural and state and federal substantive law designed to determine indigence and to protect indigent debtors;
• Whether the City provides constitutionally adequate representation to those incarcerated for unpaid debts in the proceedings that result in their incarceration;
• Whether the City has a policy and practice of threatening debtors with incarceration for unpaid debts without informing them of their constitutional rights.
I09. Among the most important common question of law are:
• Whether people are entitled to a meaningful inquiry into their ability to pay before being incarcerated by the City for non-payment of debts;
• Whether people who cannot afford to pay their debts to the City are entitled to the consideration of alternatives to incarceration before being incarcerated for nonpayment of those debts;
24

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 25 of 33
• Whether indigent people are entitled to constitutionally adequate representation by an appointed attorney in proceedings initiated and litigated by City prosecutors that result in their incarceration;
• Whether the City can employ incarceration, threats of incarceration, and other harsh debt-collection measures (such as ordering payment of significant portions of a person's public assistance benefits) against debtors who cannot afford immediately to pay their debts in full;
• Whether the City can jail people for non-payment of debt and require them to "sit out" their debts at $25.00 per day unless the person is willing and able to perform labor, in which case they "work off' their debts at $58.00 per day.
110. These common legal and factual questions arise from one central scheme and set of policies and practices: the City's Municipal Court debt-collection scheme. 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.
C. Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). 111. The named Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Classes, and they have the same interests in this case as all other members of the Classes that they represent. Each of them suffered injuries from the City's failure to comply with the basic constitutional provisions detailed below. The answer to whether the City's scheme of policies and practices is unconstitutional will determine the claims of the named Plaintiffs and every other Class member. 112. If the named Plaintiffs succeed in their claims that the City's policies and practices concerning debt collection for fines, fees, and costs violate the law in the ways alleged in each claim of the Complaint, then that ruling will likewise benefit every other member of the Injunctive and Damages Classes.
25

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 26 of 33
D. Adequacy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). 113. The named Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Classes because they are members of the Classes and because their interests coincide with and are not antagonistic to those of the Classes. There are no known conflicts of interest among Class members, all of whom have a similar interest in vindicating the constitutional rights to which they are entitled. 114. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Equal Justice Under Law15 and the MacArthur Justice Center16 who have experience litigating complex civil rights matters in federal court and knowledge of both the details of the City's scheme and the relevant constitutional and statutory law. 115. Counsel's efforts have so far involved substantial investigation, including interviews with witnesses, City employees, jail and penal farm inmates, attorneys practicing in the City's Municipal Court, community members, statewide experts in the functioning of Mississippi's municipal courts, and national experts in debt collection, forced labor, and constitutional law. 116. Counsel and their agents have observed and participated in courtroom hearings in the City of Jackson's Municipal Court in order develop an understanding of local policies and practices regarding debt collection. Counsel have studied the way that these systems function in other cities across the country in order to investigate the wide array of constitutional debt collection practices available to municipalities. 117. As a result, counsel has devoted substantial time and resources to becoming familiar with the City's scheme and with the relevant state and federal laws and procedures that should govern it.
15 Equal Justice Under Law is a non-profit civil rights organization based in Washington, D.C. The organization is funded in part by the Harvard Law School Public Service Venture Fund. 16 The MacArthur Justice Center is a non-profit public interest law firm housed at the University of Mississippi.
26

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 27 of 33
118. Counsel from Equal Justice Under Law was recently the lead attorney in a landmark federal civil rights class action lawsuit against the City of Montgomery, Alabama for engaging in similar practices. In that case, the United States District Court of the Middle District of Alabama issued a preliminary injunction condemning and forbidding the City of Montgomery's similar incarceration of impoverished people with unpaid debts, and the case was successfully settled after the City agreed to compensate the Plaintiffs and to the entry of an injunction reforming its entire municipal debt-collection scheme. See Mitchell et a/. v. City of Montgomery, 14-cv-186-MHT (M.D. Ala. 2014). Counsel from Equal Justice Under Law is also the lead attorney in two cases involving the similar treatment of impoverished people in St. Louis County, Missouri's municipal courts, see Jenkins eta/. v. City ofJennings, 15-cv-252-CEJ (E.D. Mo. 2015); Fant et a!. v. City of Ferguson, 15-cv-253-AGF (E.D. Mo. 2015), and in a suit alleging similar unconstitutional jailing of indigent people in New Orleans. See Cain et a/. v. City ofNew Orleans, eta/., 2:15-cv-04479-SSV-JCW (E.D. La. 2015). 17
119. Counsel from the MacArthur Justice Center and Equal Justice Under Law also represent the plaintiffs in a federal class action lawsuit challenging the fixed "bail schedule" scheme employed by the City of Moss Point, Mississippi. See Thompson v. Moss Point, 15-cv182-LG (S.D. Miss. 2015). Like the City's debt collection scheme, the City of Moss Point's fixed "bail schedule" scheme results in the unconstitutional jailing of numerous impoverished people.
120. The interests of the members of the Class will be fairly and adequately protected by the Plaintiffs and their attorneys.
17 Counsel from Equal Justice Under Law is also lead attorney in several recent class action lawsuits challenging the use of money bail to keep impoverished people in jail prior to trial, including, among others, Jones et a/. v. City of Clanton, 15-cv-34 (M.D. Ala. 2015); Pierce et. a/. v. City of Velda City, 15-cv-570 (E.D. Mo. 2015); Powell eta/. v. City of St. Ann, 4: 15-cv-840 (E.D. Mo. 20 15); Cooper el a/. v. City of Dothan, 1: 15-cv-425-WKW (M.D. Ala. 2015).
27

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 28 of 33
E. Rule 23(b)(2) 121. Class action status is appropriate because the City, through the policies, practices and procedures that make up its Municipal Court debt collection scheme, have acted in the same unconstitutional manner with respect to all members of the Declaratory and Injunctive Class. Thus, a declaration that people in the City are entitled, as a matter of federal law, to a meaningful inquiry into their ability to pay and an evaluation of alternatives to incarceration before they are jailed by the City for non-payment will apply to each Class member. The same applies to rulings on the other claims, including: that the City cannot imprison Class members for debts and then coerce them into working to reduce their debts by an additional $33.00 per day; that the City cannot collect debts from Class members in a manner that violates and evades all of the relevant protections for other judgment debtors; and that the City cannot imprison Class members for unpaid debts without providing them with constitutionally adequate representation. 122. Injunctive relief compelling the City to comply with these constitutional rights will similarly protect each member of the Class from again being subjected to the City's unlawful policies and practices with respect to the debts that they still owe and protect those who will incur such debts in the future from the same unconstitutional conduct. Therefore, declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a whole is appropriate. F. Rule 23(b)(3) 123. Class treatment under Rule 23(b)(3) is also appropriate because the common questions of law and fact overwhelmingly predominate in this case. This case turns, for every Plaintiff, on what the City's policies and practices are and on whether those policies are lawful. 124. The common questions of law and fact listed above are dispositive questions in the case of every member of the Classes. The question of liability can therefore be determined
28

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 29 of 33
on a class-wide basis. Class-wide treatment of liability is a far superior method of determining the content and legality of the City's policies and practices than individual suits by hundreds or thousands of people. The question of damages will also be driven by class-wide determinations, such as the policies, practices, and conditions at the jail and penal farm. To the extent that individual damages will vary, they will vary depending in large part on the amount of time that a person was unlawfully incarcerated. Determining damages for individual Class members can thus typically be handled in a ministerial fashion based on easily verifiable records of the length of unlawful incarceration. If need be, individual hearings on Class-member specific damages based on special circumstances can be held after Class-wide liability is determined-a method far more efficient than the wholesale litigation of hundreds or thousands of individual lawsuits.
125. Plaintiffs seek the following relief and hereby demand a jury in this cause for all matters so appropriate.
Claims for Relief Count One: The City Violated Plaintiffs' Rights By Incarcerating Them For Non-Payment of Debts Without Any Inquiry Into Their Ability To Pay. 126. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-125. 127. 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 unable to pay and without following basic procedures to make that determination. 18 The City violated the Plaintiffs' rights by incarcerating them when they could not afford to pay the debt allegedly owed and without following the basic constitutional process required.
18 Mississippi law also prohibits these practices. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-20. See also Cassibry v. State, 453 So.2d 1298, 1299 (Miss. 1984) ("So long as [a person] is 'financially unable to pay a fine' and the trial court so finds, he may not be imprisoned, period.") (citing Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-20(2)) (emphasis in original).
29

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 30 of 33
128. The City violated the Plaintiffs' rights by incarcerating them, and by threatening to incarcerate 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. The City similarly did not provide the required notice to the Plaintiffs concerning the relevant issues at any hearing contemplating their imprisonment, provide a meaningful opportunity for the Plaintiffs to present evidence of their inability to pay, or make findings concerning their ability to pay.
129. The City's policy and practice of incarcerating people when they cannot afford to pay their debts and of automatically converting monetary fines into days in jail at a rate of $25.00 or $58.00 per day violates the due process and equal protection provisions of the United States Constitution.
Count Two: The City Violated the Plaintiffs' Rights by Imprisoning Them for Inability to Pay Debts Without Appointing Adequate Counsel. 130. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-129. 131. The City violated the Plaintiffs right to the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by incarcerating Plaintiffs during proceedings litigated by City prosecutors at which the Plaintiffs did not have the benefit of adequate counsel and did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive counsel. 132. The City's policy of not providing adequate counsel at hearings in which indigent people are ordered to be imprisoned at the jail or penal farm for unpaid debts, which are, in tum, based on convictions for traffic violations and other misdemeanor offenses at which the person was also unrepresented or without adequate counsel, violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
30

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 31 of 33
Count Three: The City's Scheme of Forcing Indigent Prisoners to Labor at the Penal Farm in Order to Work Off Their Debts Violates the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Federal Law. 133. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-132 above. 134. The City unlawfully incarcerated the Plaintiffs for a monetary debt owed to the City. In addition to being unlawfully incarcerated for failure to pay debts owed to the City, Plaintiffs were, pursuant to the City's practices and policy, coerced with longer unlawful jail terms if they did not "agree" to labor at the County Penal Farm for an extra credit of $33.00 per day toward their debts. This amounts to peonage and forced labor, whereby a person is coerced by threat of legal sanction-i.e. further imprisonment-to work off a debt to a master. It is also an abuse of the legal process that exploited the City'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. 135. Plaintiffs allegedly owed the City a monetary debt for traffic violations or other misdemeanor offenses and associated fees and costs. 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 statutes, 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 Four: The City's Use of Incarceration and Threats of Incarceration to Collect Debts Owed to the City Violates the Equal Protection Clause Because it Imposes Unduly Harsh and Punitive Restrictions on Debtors Whose Creditor is the Government Compared to Those Who Owe Money to Private Creditors. 136. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-135 above.
31

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 32 of 33
137. The United States Supreme Court has held that, when a government seeks to
recoup costs of prosecution from indigent defendants-for example, the cost of appointed
counsel-it may not take advantage of its position to impose unduly restrictive methods of
collection solely because the debt is owed to the government and not to a private creditor. By
incarcerating the Plaintiffs and threatening to incarcerate them, the City takes advantage of their
control over the machinery of the penal and police systems to deny debtors the statutory
protections that every other debtor may invoke against a private creditor. This coercive policy
and practice constitutes invidious discrimination and violates the fundamental principles of equal
protection of the laws.
Request 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 without conducting any meaningful inquiry into their ability to pay or into any alternatives to incarceration;
b. A declaratory judgment that the Defendant City violated Plaintiffs' Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by imprisoning them without providing adequate counsel to represent them at the judicial proceeding(s) that led to their incarceration;
c. A declaratory judgment that the Defendant City violated Plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory rights by coercing them into performing labor at the jail or penal farm in order to work off their debts;
d. A declaratory judgment that the Defendant City violated Plaintiffs' equal protection rights by imposing harsh debt collection measures not imposed on debtors whose creditors are private entities;
e. An order and judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Defendant City from enforcing the above-described unconstitutional policies and practices against Plaintiffs and the Class of similarly situated people that they represent;
f. A judgment compensating the Plaintiffs and the Class of similarly situated people that they represent for the damages that they suffered as a result of the Defendant City's unconstitutional and unlawful conduct;
32

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 33 of 33
g. 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.
C"~"
Respectfully submitted this the _! _ - of October, 2015,
767 No rth Congress Street Jackson, MS 39202 Tele: (60 I) 969-0802, Ext. 204 Fax: (60 I) 969-0804 jhoward@macarthurj usti ce.org J. CLIFF JOHNSON, II, MSB #9383 MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER P.O. Box 1848 University, MS 38677-1848 Tele: (602) 915-7629 cjohnson@macarthurjusti c.org *ALEC KARAKATSANIS, D.C. Bar #999294 EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW 9 16 G Street, NW Suite 70 I Washington, DC 2000 I Tele: (202)-68 1-2409 a lec@equaljustic eund er law.org *Pending admission Pro Hac Vice Allorneysfor PlaintifF
33

 
 Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 2 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 1

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the Southern District of Mississippi

)

Jerome Bell, James Sheppard, Marteze Harris, Demonic Butler, Michael Davis, Ricky Lambert, Jarmale

) )

Walker, et al.

)

Plaintiff(s)

)

v..

) )

)

)

)

The City of Jackson, Mississippi

)

Defendant(s)

)

s Civil Action No. ·. \5 .. c.v-:-f'3() 1Sl:Rl+v{

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACI'ION

To: (Defendant's name and address) The City of Jackson, Mississippi
c/o Mayor Tony Yarber 219 South President Street Jackson, Mississippi

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service ofthis summons on you (not counting the day you received it)- or 60 days ifyou are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3)- you must serve on the plaintiffan answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney,
whose name and address are: Jacob w. Howard
MacArthur Justice Center 767 N. Congress Street Jackson, Mississippi 39202

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

ARTHUR JOHNSTON

CLERK OF COURT

OCT- 9 2015
Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Signature ofClerk or Deputy Clerk

 
 Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 21 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
JEROME BELL, JAMES SHEPPARD, MARTEZE HARRIS, DOMONIC BUTLER, MICHAEL DAVIS, RICKY LAMBERT, JARMALE WALKER, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15CV732TSL-RHW

THE CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI

DEFENDANT

ORDER This cause is before the court on the motion of Professional Bail Agents Association of Mississippi, Inc. d/b/a Mississippi Bail Agents for intervention of right, or alternatively, for permissive intervention, pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The existing parties have both responded in opposition to the motion and the court, having considered the memoranda of authorities submitted by the parties, concludes the motion is not well taken and should be denied. Following a settlement between the existing parties, this court entered a final judgment in this cause on June 20, 2016, ordering therein that the parties comply with the terms of their settlement agreement, a copy of which was made an exhibit to the court’s order. The proposed intervenors seek to intervene to challenge portions of the settlement agreement which they contend violate federal and state constitutional law and statutory law and which impair or impede their own interests. In their opposition

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 21 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 3

to the motion, the parties point out that since final judgment has been entered, then the proposed intervenors may intervene only if they demonstrate they have Article III standing, which they lack. See Newby v. Enron, 443 F.3d 416, 422 (5th Cir. 2006) (“In the absence of a live controversy in a pending case, an intervenor would need standing to intervene.”); State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Hood, 266 F.R.D. 135, 140 (S.D. Miss. 2010) (“[W]here the claims in the main action have been dismissed, whether by decision on the merits or settlement, nonparties seeking intervention must show that they have standing under Article III of the United States Constitution in order to intervene.”) (citations omitted, emphasis added).
The proposed intervenors implicitly acknowledge they lack Article III standing,1 but they argue that “due to the tactics utilized by Plaintiffs in this” and other cases, the doctrine of equitable estoppel should apply to relieve them of meeting the Article III standing threshold. However, “Article III standing is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived,” Louisiana Sportsmen All., L.L.C. v. Vilsack, 583 F. App'x 379, 380 (5th Cir. 2014), and is not subject to equitable estoppel, see Inst. of

1

It is the proposed intervenors’ burden to establish they

have Article III standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504

U.S. 555, 561, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992). Even

had they not conceded their lack of standing, it is clear they

have not demonstrated that they have constitutional standing.

2

Case 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW Document 21 Filed 08/25/16 Page 3 of 3
Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc'y, 153 F. Supp. 3d 1291, 1316 (W.D. Wash. 2015) (“[T]he elements of Article III standing are not equitable; they are constitutionally mandated components of a ‘case or controversy’ over which federal courts assume subject matter jurisdiction.”) (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S. Ct. 2130); Almont Ambulatory Surgery Ctr., LLC v. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc., 99 F. Supp. 3d 1110, 1140 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (“Article III standing ... pertains to subject matter jurisdiction (which a party cannot be prevented, in equity, from raising)....”); CornerStone Staffing Sols., Inc. v. James, No. C 12-01527 RS, 2014 WL 984673, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2014) (“Article III standing is not a discretionary or equitable doctrine. Rather, it is a jurisdictional requirement that can neither be waived by the parties nor ignored by the court.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Accordingly, as the proposed intervenors lack Article III standing, it is ordered that their motion to intervene is denied.
SO ORDERED this 25th day of August, 2016.
/s/Tom S. Lee UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3

 
 Case: 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW As of: 02/05/2017 03:47 PM CST 1 of 7
CLOSED,CLASS_ACTION,JURY,NO_CMC,RHW
U.S. District Court Southern District of Mississippi (Northern (Jackson)) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:15−cv−00732−TSL−RHW

Bell et al v. The City of Jackson, Mississippi Assigned to: District Judge Tom S. Lee Referred to: Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Jerome Bell

Date Filed: 10/09/2015 Date Terminated: 06/20/2016 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Alec Karakatsanis − PHV EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW 916 G Street NW, #701 Washington, DC 20001 202/681−2409 Email: alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cliff Johnson MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER − University Director, University of Mississippi School of Law 481 Chucky Mullins Drive University, MS 38677 662−915−6863 Email: cjohnson@macarthurjustice.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob W. Howard MCDUFF &BYRD 767 N. Congress Jackson, MS 39202 601/969−0802 Fax: 602/969−0804 Email: jake@mcdufflaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff James Sheppard

represented by Alec Karakatsanis − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cliff Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob W. Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW As of: 02/05/2017 03:47 PM CST 2 of 7

Marteze Harris

represented by Alec Karakatsanis − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cliff Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob W. Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Domonic Butler

represented by Alec Karakatsanis − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cliff Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob W. Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Michael Davis

represented by Alec Karakatsanis − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cliff Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob W. Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ricky Lambert

represented by Alec Karakatsanis − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cliff Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob W. Howard

Case: 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW As of: 02/05/2017 03:47 PM CST 3 of 7

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

Plaintiff Jarmale Walker

represented by Alec Karakatsanis − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cliff Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob W. Howard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant The City of Jackson, Mississippi
Intervenor Professional Bail Agents Association of Mississippi, Inc. TERMINATED: 08/25/2016

represented by LaShundra B. Jackson−Winters−City Gov OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY − Jackson P. O. Box 2779 455 E. Capitol St. (39201) Jackson, MS 39207−2779 601/960−1799 Fax: 601/960−1756 Email: lwinters@city.jackson.ms.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gail Wright Lowery−City Gov OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY − Jackson P. O. Box 2779 455 E. Capitol St. (39201) Jackson, MS 39207−2779 601/960−1799 Fax: 601/960−1756 Email: glowery@city.jackson.ms.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher E. Smith SMITH &HOLDER, PLLC P. O. Box 1149 Gulfport, MS 39502 228/206−7076 Fax: 228/284−1870 Email: chris@smithholder.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

# Docket Text

Case: 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW As of: 02/05/2017 03:47 PM CST 4 of 7

10/09/2015
10/09/2015 10/14/2015 10/16/2015 10/16/2015 10/19/2015 10/19/2015 10/19/2015 10/23/2015 10/26/2015 11/05/2015
11/05/2015 12/03/2015

1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against The City of Jackson, Mississippi ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 34643035775) filed by James Sheppard, Jerome Bell, Marteze Harris, Jarmale Walker, Ricky Lambert, Michael Davis, and Domonic Butler. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Bell, Mittimus 7/10/15, # 2 Exhibit B − Sheppard, Mittimus 9/4/15, # 3 Exhibit C − Harris, Mittimus 7/23/15, # 4 Exhibit D − Public Service Work Agreement, 9/15/15, # 5 Exhibit E − Butler, Mittimus 7/22/15, # 6 Exhibit F − Davis, Mittimus 4/13/15, # 7 Exhibit G − Lambert, Mittimus 8/14/15, # 8 Exhibit H − Public Service Work Agreement, 9/17/15, # 9 Exhibit I − Walker, Mittimus 7/13/15, # 10 Civil Cover Sheet)(ND) (Entered: 10/09/2015)
2 Summons Issued as to The City of Jackson, Mississippi. (ND) (Entered: 10/09/2015)
3 SUMMONS Returned Executed by James Sheppard, Jerome Bell, Marteze Harris, Jarmale Walker, Ricky Lambert, Michael Davis, Domonic Butler The City of Jackson, Mississippi served on 10/14/2015, answer due 11/4/2015. (Johnson, J.) (Entered: 10/14/2015)
4 MOTION for Alec Karakatsanis to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Jerome Bell, Domonic Butler, Michael Davis, Marteze Harris, Ricky Lambert, James Sheppard, Jarmale Walker (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Good Standing)(Johnson, J.) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid for Alec Karakatsanis receipt number 0538−3051190 $ 100 (Johnson, J.) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
5 Amended MOTION for Alec Karakatsanis to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Jerome Bell, Domonic Butler, Michael Davis, Marteze Harris, Ricky Lambert, James Sheppard, Jarmale Walker (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Good Standing)(Johnson, J.) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
6 ORDER granting 5 Amended Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Alec Karakatsanis shall be admitted pro hac vice to serve as co−counsel for the defendants Jerome Bell, Domonic Butler, Michael Davis, Marteze Harris, Ricky Lambert, James Sheppard and Jarmale Walker. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on October 19, 2015. (Joffe, Scherry) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER finding as moot 4 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Movants filed an Amended Motion 5 which the Court has granted by order 6 entered this date. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on October 19, 2015. (Joffe, Scherry) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
7 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,, by The City of Jackson, Mississippi.(Jackson−Winters, LaShundra) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
NOTICE of Hearing: Telephone Conference set for 11/5/2015 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker to establish deadlines for class action discovery and to file a motion to certify a class. Plaintiff will place the telephone call to Judge Walker's chambers with all necessary counsel on the line. (SR) (Entered: 10/26/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker: Telephone Conference held on 11/5/2015 with attorneys J. Cliff Johnson and LaShundra B. Jackson−Winters who advised they are attempting to settle the case and are requesting additional time to continue settlement negotiations. The Court will not schedule deadlines at this time but will notice another telephonic status call for December 3, 2015 at 10:00 AM. (SR) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 12/3/2015 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker. Plaintiff will place the telephone call to Judge Walker's chambers with all necessary counsel on the line. (SR) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker: Telephonic Status Conference held on 12/3/2015 with attorneys J. Cliff Johnson and LaShundra B. Jackson−Winters who advised they have participated in

Case: 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW As of: 02/05/2017 03:47 PM CST 5 of 7

12/03/2015 01/05/2016
01/05/2016 02/16/2016
02/16/2016 02/22/2016 03/02/2016 03/16/2016
03/16/2016 04/07/2016 04/21/2016 04/22/2016

numerous lengthy in−person negotiations and advised they are making substantial progress toward settlement of the case, but are requesting additional time to continue the negotiations. The Court will notice another telephonic status call for January 5, 2016 at 1:30 PM. (SR) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/5/2016 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker. Plaintiff will place the telephone call to Judge Walker's chambers with all necessary counsel on the line. (SR) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker: Telephonic Status Conference held on 1/5/2016 with attorneys J. Cliff Johnson and LaShundra B. Jackson−Winters who advised they continue to make substantial progress toward settlement of the case but are requesting additional time to continue negotiations. The Court advised it will allow one last opportunity to reach a settlement and will notice a telephonic status conference for February 16, 2016 at 10:00 AM. If the case has not settled by that date deadlines for class action discovery and to file a motion to certify a class will be scheduled. (SR) (Entered: 01/05/2016)
NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 2/16/2016 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker. Plaintiff will place the telephone call to Judge Walker's chambers with all necessary counsel on the line. (SR) (Entered: 01/05/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker: Telephonic Status Conference held on 2/16/2016 with attorneys J. Cliff Johnson, Gail W. Lowery and LaShundra B. Jackson−Winters. Counsel continue to negotiate settlement of the case in good faith and advised they have resolved all but four to five issues. The Court is directing that counsel meet in person in an attempt to finalize settlement and will schedule a telephonic status conference for March 2, 2016 at 10:00 AM. (SR) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 3/2/2016 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker. Plaintiff will place the telephone call to Judge Walker's chambers with all necessary counsel on the line. (SR) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
Reset Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference RESET for 3/2/2016 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker. Plaintiff will place the telephone call to Judge Walker's chambers with all necessary counsel on the line. (SR) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
Reset Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference RESET for 3/16/2016 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker. Plaintiff will place the telephone call to Judge Walker's chambers with all necessary counsel on the line. (SR) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker: Telephonic Status Conference held on 3/16/2016 with attorneys J. Cliff Johnson, Gail W. Lowery and LaShundra B. Jackson−Winters who advised they continue in their efforts to resolve all issues but several remain contested. The Court directed the attorneys to continue in their attempts to settle the case but stated that the case will now proceed and that a telephonic case management conference will be noticed for April 28, 2016 at 1:30 PM. (SR) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
8 Rule 16(a) Initial Order Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 4/28/2016 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker. (SR) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by Gail Wright Lowery on behalf of The City of Jackson, Mississippi (Lowery, Gail) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
10 NOTICE of Service of City of Jackson's Initial Disclosure by The City of Jackson, Mississippi (Jackson−Winters, LaShundra) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
11 NOTICE of Service of Initial Disclosure by Jerome Bell, Domonic Butler, Michael Davis, Marteze Harris, Ricky Lambert, James Sheppard, Jarmale Walker (Johnson,

Case: 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW As of: 02/05/2017 03:47 PM CST 6 of 7

04/22/2016 04/25/2016 04/28/2016
04/28/2016 05/05/2016
05/05/2016 06/09/2016 06/20/2016 06/20/2016 06/28/2016

J.) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 11 . This document is not accompanied by a certificate of service. A certificate of service must be attached to a document [Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing, Sec. 4.A.1, Sec. 4.B, and Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 5(d)(1)]. Attorney is directed to file a certificate as CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE and link it to the proper document. (ND) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
12 ATTACHMENT re 11 Notice of Service of Disclosure − Certificate of Service by Jerome Bell, Domonic Butler, Michael Davis, Marteze Harris, Ricky Lambert, James Sheppard, Jarmale Walker (Johnson, J.) (Entered: 04/25/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker: Telephonic Case Management Conference held on 4/28/2016 with attorneys J. Cliff Johnson, LaShundra B. Jackson−Winters and Gail Wright Lowery who advised that the attorneys have agreed to terms of a potential settlement of the case which is to be presented to the Jackson city council for consideration and approval at their next meeting on May 3, 2016. The Court will not enter a scheduling order at this time but will notice another telephonic status conference for May 5, 2016 at 10:30 AM. (SR) (Entered: 04/28/2016)
NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 5/5/2016 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker. Plaintiff will place the telephone call to Judge Walker's chambers with all necessary counsel on the line. (SR) (Entered: 04/28/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/5/2016 with attorneys Jacob W. Howard, LaShundra B. Jackson−Winters and Gail Wright Lowery. Counsel for the City of Jackson, Mississippi advised that the proposed settlement agreement was presented to the Jackson city council for approval at their meeting on May 3, 2016 and that the settlement was approved in principle. The attorneys are preparing a revised settlement agreement and will submit same to the Jackson city council for final approval at their June 7, 2016 meeting. The Court will notice a telephonic status call for June 9, 2016 at 3:00 PM. (SR) (Entered: 05/05/2016)
NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 6/9/2016 03:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker. Plaintiff will place the telephone call to Judge Walker's chambers with all necessary counsel on the line. (SR) (Entered: 05/05/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker: Telephonic Status Conference held on 6/9/2016 with attorneys J. Cliff Johnson and LaShundra B. Jackson−Winters who advised that the case settled. The attorneys are directed to submit a proposed final judgment to Judge Lee no later than Friday, June 17, 2016. (SR) (Entered: 06/09/2016)
13 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT: it violates the Constitution to incarcerate an individual, either before or after trial, solely because an individual does not have the ability to make a monetary payment. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 6/20/16 (LWE) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
14 FINAL JUDGMENT dismissing plaintiff's claims with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 6/20/16. (RRL) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
15 MOTION to Intervene by Professional Bail Agents Association of Mississippi, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Motion to Alter or Amend Final Judgment, or in the Alternative, for Relief from Final Judgment, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion to Alter or Amend Final Judgment, or in the Alternative, for Relief from Final Judgment, # 3 Exhibit Complaint in Jenkins vs. City of Jennings, # 4 Exhibit Judgment in Jenkins vs. City of Jennings, # 5 Exhibit Complaint in Kennedy vs. City of Biloxi, # 6 Exhibit Settlement Agreement in Kennedy vs. City of Biloxi, # 7 Exhibit Complaint in Thompson vs. City of Moss Point, # 8 Exhibit Final Judgment in Thompson vs. City of Moss Point, # 9 Exhibit Unopposed Motion for Joinder of Parties in Mitchell vs. City of Montgomery, # 10 Exhibit Declaration of Wayne Dowdle)(Smith, Christopher)

Case: 3:15-cv-00732-TSL-RHW As of: 02/05/2017 03:47 PM CST 7 of 7

06/28/2016 07/12/2016 07/12/2016
07/12/2016 07/20/2016 08/25/2016

(Entered: 06/28/2016)
16 MEMORANDUM in Support re 15 MOTION to Intervene filed by Professional Bail Agents Association of Mississippi, Inc. (Smith, Christopher) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
17 RESPONSE in Opposition re 15 MOTION to Intervene filed by Jerome Bell, Domonic Butler, Michael Davis, Marteze Harris, Ricky Lambert, James Sheppard, Jarmale Walker (Howard, Jacob) (Entered: 07/12/2016)
18 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 15 MOTION to Intervene filed by Jerome Bell, Domonic Butler, Michael Davis, Marteze Harris, Ricky Lambert, James Sheppard, Jarmale Walker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A − McComb Order)(Howard, Jacob) (Entered: 07/12/2016)
19 RESPONSE in Opposition re 15 MOTION to Intervene filed by The City of Jackson, Mississippi (Jackson−Winters−City Gov, LaShundra) (Entered: 07/12/2016)
20 Rebuttal re 19 Response in Opposition to Motion to Intervene filed by Professional Bail Agents Association of Mississippi, Inc. (Holder, G.) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
21 ORDER denying 15 Motion to Intervene field by Professional Bail Agents Association of Mississippi. (party terminated) Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 8/25/16 (LWE) (Entered: 08/25/2016)