U.S. District Court U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ

Wilkins et al v. Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc. et al Assigned to: Judge Terence Kern Referred to: Magistrate Judge Jodi F Jayne Demand: $9,999,000 Related Case: 4:18-cv-00654-TCK-FHM Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 11/02/2017 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Ira Lee Wilkins On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by Ira Lee Wilkins #09483-062 USP Leavenworth PO BOX 1000 LEAVENWORTH, KS 66048 PRO SE

Alexander Karakatsanis Civil Rights Corps (Ste 200) 910 17TH ST NW STE 200 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 202-681-2409 Fax: 202-609-8030 Email: alec@civilrightscorps.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel E Smolen Smolen and Roytman 701 S CINCINNATI AVE TULSA, OK 74119 918-585-2667 Fax: 918-585-2669 Email: danielsmolen@ssrok.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donald Eugene Smolen , II Smolen Law, PLLC 611 S DETROIT AVE TULSA, OK 74120 918-777-4529

Fax: 918-890-4529 Email: don@smolen.law LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas N Letter Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection 600 NEW JERSEY AVE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001 202-662-9042 Email: dl1016@georgetown.edu TERMINATED: 01/04/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Elizabeth Rossi Civil Rights Corps (Ste 200) 910 17TH ST NW STE 200 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 202-681-2721 Fax: 202-609-8030 Email: elizabeth@civilrightscorps.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jill Elizabeth Webb J Webb Law Firm PLLC PO BOX 1234 TULSA, OK 74103 918-346-5664 Fax: 918-856-5375 Email: Jill.Webb@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Hubbard Civil Rights Corps (Ste 200) 910 17TH ST NW STE 200 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 202-930-3835 Fax: 202-609-8030 Email: katherine@civilrightscorps.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marco Lopez

Civil Rights Corps (Flr 2) 910 17TH ST NW, FLR 2 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 202-844-4975 Fax: 202-609-8030 Email: marco@civilrightscorps.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary B McCord Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection 600 NEW JERSEY AVE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001 202-662-9042 Fax: 202-662-9248 Email: mbm7@georgetown.edu LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Murray Blakemore Smolen Smolen & Roytman PLLC 701 S CINCINNATI AVE TULSA, OK 74119 918-585-2667 Fax: 918-585-2669 Email: bobblakemore@ssrok.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D Friedman Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection 600 NEW JERSEY AVE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001 202-662-9042 Fax: 202-662-9248 Email: rdf34@georgetown.edu LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Downer Civil Rights Corps (Ste 200) 910 17TH ST NW STE 200

Plaintiff Carly Graff

WASHINGTON, DC 20006 202-844-4975 Fax: 202-609-8030 Email: ryan@civilrightscorps.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth T Wayne Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection 600 NEW JERSEY AVE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001 202-662-9042 Fax: 202-662-9248 Email: sw1098@georgetown.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tara Mikkilineni Civil Rights Corps 1601 CONNECTICUT AVE NW STE 800 WASHINGTON, DC 20009 202-844-4975 Fax: 202-609-8030 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Douglas N Letter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Elizabeth Rossi Civil Rights Corps 910 17TH ST NW STE 200 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 202-681-2721 Fax: 202-609-8030 Email: elizabeth@civilrightscorps.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Hubbard Civil Rights Corps

Plaintiff Randy Frazier

910 17TH ST NW STE 200 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 202-930-3835 Fax: 202-609-8030 Email: katherine@civilrightscorps.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marco Lopez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Murray Blakemore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Downer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth T Wayne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tara Mikkilineni (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel E Smolen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Douglas N Letter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019

LEAD ATTORNEY
Elizabeth Rossi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Hubbard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marco Lopez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Murray Blakemore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Downer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth T Wayne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tara Mikkilineni (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel E Smolen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff David Smith

represented by Douglas N Letter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Elizabeth Rossi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Hubbard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marco Lopez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Murray Blakemore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Downer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth T Wayne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tara Mikkilineni (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kendallia Killman

Daniel E Smolen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Douglas N Letter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Elizabeth Rossi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Hubbard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marco Lopez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Murray Blakemore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Downer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth T Wayne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tara Mikkilineni

Plaintiff Linda Meachum

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel E Smolen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Douglas N Letter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Elizabeth Rossi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Hubbard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Murray Blakemore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Downer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth T Wayne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tara Mikkilineni (See above for address)

Plaintiff Christopher Choate

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel E Smolen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Douglas N Letter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Elizabeth Rossi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Hubbard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Murray Blakemore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Downer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth T Wayne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tara Mikkilineni (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Melanie Holmes

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel E Smolen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel E Smolen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas N Letter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Katherine Hubbard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marco Lopez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Downer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth T Wayne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tara Mikkilineni (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D Friedman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc.
Defendant Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association

represented by Harry Anthony Parrish Coffey Senger & McDaniel PLLC 4725 E 91 ST STE 100 TULSA, OK 74137 918-292-8787 Fax: 918-272-8788 Email: harry@csmlawgroup.com TERMINATED: 08/05/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY
John R Woodard , III Coffey Senger & McDaniel PLLC 4725 E 91 ST STE 100 TULSA, OK 74137 918-292-8787 Fax: 918-292-8788 Email: John@csmlawgroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Earl Applegate Coffey, Senger & Woodard 4725 East 91st Street 74137 Tulsa, OK 74105 918-292-8787 Fax: 918-292-8788 Email: applegate@cswlawgroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Chris M Warzecha Conner & Winters LLP 4100 First Place Tower 15 East 5th Street Tulsa, OK 74103 918-586-5711 Fax: 918-586-8547 Email: cwarzecha@cwlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Isaac Robertson Ellis Conner & Winters LLP 4100 First Place Tower 15 E. Fifth Street Tulsa, OK 74103 918-586-5711 Fax: 918-586-5711 Email: iellis@cwlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelsey Ann Chilcoat McAtee & Woods PC 410 NW 13TH OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73103 405-232-5067 Fax: 405-232-0009 Email: kelseyc@mcateeandwoods.com TERMINATED: 12/08/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY
Maurice Glenn Woods , II McAtee & Woods PC 410 NW 13TH OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73103 405-232-5067 Fax: 405-232-0009 Email: mauricew@mcateeandwoods.com TERMINATED: 12/08/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY
Melodie Freeman-Burney Conner & Winters, LLP (Tulsa) 1 WILLIAMS CENTER RM 4000 TULSA, OK 74172-0148 918-586-8516 Fax: 918-586-8616 Email: mburney@cwlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Dale James Conner & Winters LLP 4100 First Place Tower

Defendant
Jason Ritchie Sheriff of Adair County

15 E. 5th Street Tulsa, OK 74103 918-586-5711 Email: rob.james@cwlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green LLP (OKC) PO BOX 26350 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73126 405-235-1611 Fax: 405-235-2904 Email: akelso@piercecouch.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green LLP (OKC) PO BOX 26350 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73126 405-235-1611 Fax: 405-235-2904 Email: jhendrickson@piercecouch.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green LLP (OKC) PO BOX 26350 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73126 405-235-1611 Fax: 405-235-2904 Email: rwood@piercecouch.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green LLP (OKC) PO BOX 26350 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73126

Defendant Rick Wallace Sheriff of Alfalfa County
Defendant

405-235-1611 Fax: 405-235-2904 Email: rbetts@piercecouch.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green LLP (OKC) PO BOX 26350 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73126 405-235-1611 Fax: 405-235-2904 Email: rlafferrandre@piercecouch.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tony Head Sheriff of Atoka County
Defendant Ruben Parker, Jr Sheriff of Beaver County

represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Derek Manning Sheriff of Beckham County TERMINATED: 02/08/2018 Defendant Tony Almaguer Sheriff of Blaine County
Defendant Johnny Christian Sheriff of Bryan County TERMINATED: 02/08/2018 Defendant

Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lennis Miller Sheriff of Caddo County TERMINATED: 02/08/2018 Defendant Chris West Sheriff of Canadian County
Defendant Chris Bryant Sheriff of Carter County

represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Norman Fisher Sheriff of Cherokee County
Defendant Terry Park Sheriff of Choctaw County TERMINATED: 02/08/2018 Defendant

Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leon Apple Sheriff of Cimarron County TERMINATED: 02/08/2018 Defendant Joe Lester Sheriff of Cleveland County TERMINATED: 02/13/2018 Defendant Bryan Jump Sheriff of Coal County
Defendant Kenny Stradley Sheriff of Comanche County TERMINATED: 02/08/2018 Defendant Kent Simpson Sheriff of Cotton County TERMINATED: 02/08/2018

represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Heath Winfrey Sheriff of Craig County
Defendant Bret Bowling Sheriff of Creek County

represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant Kenneth Tidwell Sheriff of Custer County TERMINATED: 02/08/2018 Defendant Harlan Moore Sheriff of Delaware County
Defendant Clay Sander Sheriff ofDewey County

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson

Defendant
Shane Booth Sheriff of Ellis County TERMINATED: 02/08/2018
Defendant
Jerry Niles Sheriff of Garfield County

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Larry Rhodes Sheriff Garvin County TERMINATED: 02/08/2018 Defendant Jim Weir Sheriff of Grady County
Defendant Scott Sterling Sheriff of Grant County

Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant Devin Huckabay Sheriff of Greer County TERMINATED: 02/08/2018
Defendant Joe Johnson Sheriff of Harmon County TERMINATED: 02/08/2018
Defendant Tra Snider Sheriff of Harper County TERMINATED: 02/13/2018
Defendant
Tim Turner Sheriff of Haskell County TERMINATED: 02/08/2018
Defendant Marcia Maxwell Sheriff of Hughes County

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson

Defendant Roger Levick Sheriff of Jackson County
Defendant

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeremie Wilson Sheriff of Jefferson County
Defendant Jon Smith Sheriff of Johnston County

represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Steve Kelley Sheriff of Kay County
Defendant Dennis Banther Sheriff of Kingfisher County

Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant Jeff Smith Sheriff of Kiowa County TERMINATED: 02/08/2018 Defendant Jesse James Sheriff of Latimer County
Defendant

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rob Seale Sheriff of LeFlore County
Defendant Charles Dougherty Sheriff of Lincoln County TERMINATED: 02/08/2018 Defendant Damon Devereaux Sheriff of Logan County TERMINATED: 02/08/2018 Defendant Marty Grisham Sheriff of Love County

represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Steve Randolph Sheriff of Major County TERMINATED: 02/08/2018
Defendant
Danny Cryer Sheriff of Marshall County

Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address)

Defendant Mike Reed Sheriff of Mayes County
Defendant Don Hewett Sheriff of McClain County TERMINATED: 02/08/2018 Defendant Kevin Clardy Sheriff of McCurtain County

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Kevin Ledbetter Sheriff of McIntosh County
Defendant Darrin Rodgers Sheriff of Murray County

Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Rob Frazier Sheriff of Muskogee County TERMINATED: 02/08/2018
Defendant
Charles Hanger Sheriff of Noble County TERMINATED: 02/08/2018
Defendant
Sandy Hadley Sheriff of Nowata County

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address)

Defendant Steven Worley Sheriff of Okfuskee County
Defendant P D Taylor Sheriff of Oklahoma County TERMINATED: 12/03/2018

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron Etherington Oklahoma County District Attorney's Office 320 ROBERT S KERR STE 606 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102

Defendant
Eddy Rice Sheriff of Okmulgee County

405-713-1600 Fax: 405-713-1749 Email: aaron.etherington@oklahomacounty.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carri Ann Remillard Oklahoma County District Attorney's Office 320 ROBERT S KERR STE 606 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 405-713-1600 Fax: 405-713-1749 Email: carri.remillard@oklahomacounty.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rodney J Heggy District Attorney's Office (Okla County) 320 ROBERT S KERR STE 505 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 405-713-2303 Fax: 405-713-1749 Email: rod.heggy@oklahomacounty.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Eddie Virden Sheriff of Osage County
Defendant Jeremy Floyd Sheriff of Ottawa County

Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant Mike Waters Sheriff of Pawnee County
Defendant

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

R B Hauf Sheriff of Payne County
Defendant Chris Morris Sheriff of Pittsburg County TERMINATED: 02/08/2018 Defendant John Christian Sheriff of Pontotoc County TERMINATED: 02/08/2018 Defendant Mike Booth Sheriff of Pottawatomie County

represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant B J Hedgecock Sheriff of Pushmataha County
Defendant Darren Atha Sheriff of Roger Mills County

Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address)

Defendant
Scott Walton Sheriff of Rogers County

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Graham Parker Best & Sharp 1 W THIRD ST STE 900 TULSA, OK 74103-4225 918-582-1234 Fax: 918-585-9447 Email: gparker@bestsharp.com TERMINATED: 04/17/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY
Thomas Adrian LeBlanc Best & Sharp 1 W THIRD ST STE 900 TULSA, OK 74103-4225 918-582-1234 Fax: 918-585-9447 Email: tleblanc@bestsharp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd Michael Wagner District 12 District Attorney's Office

Defendant Shannon Smith Sheriff of Seminole County
Defendant

200 S Lynn Riggs Blvd Claremore, OK 74017 918-923-4530 Fax: 918-923-4545 TERMINATED: 11/19/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
William Caleb Jones Norman Wohlgemuth Mid-Continent Tower 401 S. Boston Ave. Ste 3200 Tulsa, OK 74103 918-586-2527 Fax: 918-585-9447 Email: Wjones@nwlawok.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Larry Lane Sheriff of Sequoya County
Defendant Wayne McKinney Sheriff of Stephens County TERMINATED: 02/08/2018 Defendant Matt Boley Sheriff of Texas County

represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Bobby Whittington Sheriff of Tillman County
Defendant Vic Regalado Sheriff of Tulsa County

Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Barrett Lynn Powers Norman Wohlgemuth Chandler Jeter Barnett & Ray 401 S. Boston Avenue Ste 3200 Tulsa, OK 74103 918-583-7571

Fax: 918-584-7846 Email: blp@nwcjlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas Allen Wilson District Attorney's Office (Tulsa-900) 500 S DENVER AVE STE 900 TULSA, OK 74103-3832 918-596-8795 Fax: 918-596-4804 Email: douglas.wilson@tulsacounty.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Brooks Kosmider Office of the Attorney General (OKC 313) 313 NE 21ST ST OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 918-581-2914 Fax: 405-522-4534 Email: E.Kosmider@barrowgrimm.com TERMINATED: 10/05/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jo Lynn Jeter Norman Wohlgemuth Chandler Jeter Barnett & Ray 401 S. Boston Ave., Suite 3200 Tulsa Tulsa, OK 74103 918-583-7571 Fax: 918-584-7846 Email: jlj@nwcdlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joel L Wohlgemuth Norman Wohlgemuth Chandler Jeter Barnett & Ray 401 S. Boston Ave., Suite 3200 Tulsa Tulsa, OK 74103 918-583-7571 Fax: 918-584-7846

Defendant
Chris Elliott Sheriff of Wagoner County

Email: jlw@nwcdlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberly Majors Hall District Attorney's Office (Tulsa-800) 500 S DENVER STE 800 TULSA, OK 74103 918-596-4845 Fax: 918-596-4804 Email: khall@tulsacounty.org TERMINATED: 01/04/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Michael Shouse Tulsa County District Attorney's Office 500 S Denver Ste 900 Tulsa, OK 74103 918-596-4825 Email: mshouse@tulsacounty.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre

Defendant Rick Silver Sheriff of Washington County
Defendant Roger Reeve Sheriff of Washita County

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Rudy Briggs, Jr Sheriff of Woods County
Defendant Kevin Mitchell Sheriff of Woodward County

Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address)

Defendant Jim D Shofner
Defendant Rob Shofner

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Harry Anthony Parrish (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY
John R Woodard , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Earl Applegate (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Harry Anthony Parrish (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY
John R Woodard , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Earl Applegate (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The

represented by Barrett Lynn Powers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas Allen Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily Brooks Kosmider (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/05/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Jo Lynn Jeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joel L Wohlgemuth (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly Majors Hall (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY

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

Defendant
Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The

represented by David Graham Parker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/17/2020

Defendant Todd Gibson Sheriff of Cleveland County
Defendant

LEAD ATTORNEY
Thomas Adrian LeBlanc (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd Michael Wagner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/19/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
William Caleb Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas McClendon Sheriff of Harper County
Defendant Dawn Moody Judge
Defendant Doug Drummond Judge Defendant

represented by April Danielle Kelso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Wood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lamar Betts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Stevens Lafferrandre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stefanie Erin Lawson Office of the Attorney General (OKC313) LITIGATION SECTION 313 NE 21ST ST OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 405-521-4274 Fax: 405-521-4518 Email: stefanie.lawson@oag.ok.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stefanie Erin Lawson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Musseman, Jr Judge Defendant Don Newberry Tulsa County Court Clerk
Defendant Darlene Bailey Tulsa County Cost Administrator

represented by Stefanie Erin Lawson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Barrett Lynn Powers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas Allen Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Brooks Kosmider (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/05/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jo Lynn Jeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joel L Wohlgemuth (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberly Majors Hall (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Michael Shouse (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Barrett Lynn Powers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant Terrell S Crosson Judge
Defendant Kim Henry Rogers County Court Clerk

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas Allen Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Brooks Kosmider (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/05/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jo Lynn Jeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joel L Wohlgemuth (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberly Majors Hall (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Michael Shouse (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stefanie Erin Lawson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Graham Parker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/17/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY
Scott Boudinot Wood

Wood Puhl & Wood 2409 E SKELLY DR STE 200 TULSA, OK 74105 918-742-0808 Fax: 918-742-0812 Email: okcoplaw@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Adrian LeBlanc (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/24/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd Michael Wagner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/19/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Date Filed 11/02/2017 11/02/2017 01/10/2018
01/10/2018
01/10/2018 01/10/2018

# Docket Text
1 CIVIL COVER SHEET by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 11/02/2017)
2 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants (paid $400 filing fee; receipt number 1085-1843185) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 11/02/2017)
3 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by John R Woodard, III on behalf of Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc. [Note: Attorney John R Woodard, III added to party Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc.(pty:dft).] (Woodard, John) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
4 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Robert Earl Applegate on behalf of Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc. [Note: Attorney Robert Earl Applegate added to party Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc.(pty:dft).] (Applegate, Robert) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
5 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc. (Applegate, Robert) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
6 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation by Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc. (Applegate, Robert) (Entered: 01/10/2018)

01/11/2018 01/11/2018 01/12/2018
01/12/2018
01/22/2018 01/25/2018 01/25/2018 01/29/2018 01/29/2018

7 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan that defendant Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc. may file an excess-page motion to dismiss as requested ; granting 6 Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 01/11/2018)
8 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc. (Applegate, Robert) (Entered: 01/11/2018)
MINUTE ORDER by Court Clerk , directing Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc. to file a Corporate Disclosure Statement pursuant to FRCvP 7.1 within seven (7) days of this order, if they have not already done so. The parties shall use the form entitled Corporate Disclosure Statement available on the Courts website (please do not refile if already filed on non-court form unless directed to do so). If you have already filed your Corporate Disclosure Statement in this case, you are reminded to file a Supplemental Corporate Disclosure Statement within a reasonable time of any change in the information that the statement requires. (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (sc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
9 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan - Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(2), the Court finds good cause for delay in entering the scheduling order. If necessary, a scheduling order will be entered after ruling on the pending motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 8). (Re: 2 Complaint, 8 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
10 SUMMONS Issued by Court Clerk as to All Defendants (jln, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/22/2018)
11 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Bryan Jump (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/25/2018)
12 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Steve Kelley (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/25/2018)
13 MOTION for Attorney(s) Mary B. McCord, Seth T. Wayne and Robert D. Friedman to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $150 PHV fee; receipt number 1085-1870998) by Ira Lee Wilkins (With attachments) (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
14 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Norman Fisher (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/29/2018)

01/29/2018 01/29/2018 01/29/2018 01/29/2018 01/29/2018 01/29/2018 01/29/2018 01/29/2018 01/29/2018
01/29/2018 01/29/2018 01/29/2018 01/29/2018 01/29/2018 01/29/2018 01/29/2018

15 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Joe Lester (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
16 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Bret Bowling (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
17 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Harlan Moore (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
18 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Jesse James (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
19 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Rob Seale (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
20 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Mike Reed (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
21 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Kevin Clardy (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
22 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Kevin Ledbetter (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
23 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Kevin Ledbetter (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) Modified on 1/29/2018STRICKEN per 35 (srt, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 01/29/2018)
24 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Sandy Hadley (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
25 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Eddy Rice (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
26 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Eddie Virden (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
27 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Mike Waters (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
28 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: R B Hauf (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
29 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: B J Hedgecock (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
30 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Scott Walton (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/29/2018)

01/29/2018 01/29/2018 01/29/2018 01/29/2018 01/29/2018
01/29/2018
01/30/2018
01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018

31 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Larry Lane (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
32 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Chris Elliott (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
33 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Rick Silver (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
34 ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan (re Attys Mary B. McCord, Seth T. Wayne, and Robert D. Friedman for plaintiff) ; granting 13 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
35 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan that the return of service (Dkt. # 23) is stricken as it is a duplicate of Dkt # 22., striking/withdrawing document(s) (Re: 23 Summons Returned Executed ) (Documents Terminated: 23 Summons Returned Executed ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (RGG, Chambers) Modified on 1/29/2018 to correct docket text to reflect #23 is stricken (srt, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 01/29/2018)
NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: incorrect ruling was selected: sealing document(s); Correction: Edited docket text to reflect the correct ruling: document stricken (Re: 35 Minute Order,, Sealing Document(s),,, ) (srt, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
36 MOTION for Attorney(s) Katherine Hubbard, Alec Karakatsanis and Elizabeth Rossi to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $150 PHV fee; receipt number 1085-1871591) by Ira Lee Wilkins (With attachments) (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
37 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Jason Ritchie (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
38 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Rick Wallace (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
39 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Tony Head (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
40 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Tony Almaguer (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
41 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Chris West (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
42 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Chris Bryant (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)

01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018
01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018

43 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Kenny Stradley (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
44 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Heath Winfrey (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
45 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Clay Sander (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
46 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Jerry Niles (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
47 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Jim Weir (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
48 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Scott Sterling (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
49 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Marcia Maxwell (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
50 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Roger Levick (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
51 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Jeremie Wilson (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
52 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Jon Smith (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
53 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Dennis Banther (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
54 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Damon Devereaux (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
55 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Marty Grisham (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
56 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Darrin Rodgers (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
57 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Danny Cryer (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
58 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Rob Frazier (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)

01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018
01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018 01/30/2018
01/31/2018 01/31/2018

59 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Steven Worley (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
60 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: P D Taylor (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
61 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Jeremy Floyd (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
62 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Mike Booth (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
63 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Darren Atha (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
64 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Shannon Smith (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
65 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Matt Boley (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
66 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Bobby Whittington (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
67 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Vic Regalado (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
68 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Roger Reeve (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
69 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Rudy Briggs, Jr (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
70 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Kevin Mitchell (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
71 ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan (re Attys Katherine Hubbard, Alec Karakatsanis, and Elizabeth Rossi for Plaintiff) ; granting 36 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
72 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Seth T Wayne on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 01/31/2018)
73 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Mary B McCord on behalf of All Plaintiffs (McCord, Mary) (Entered: 01/31/2018)

01/31/2018 02/01/2018 02/01/2018 02/01/2018
02/01/2018 02/02/2018
02/02/2018 02/02/2018

74 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Robert D Friedman on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Friedman, Robert) (Entered: 01/31/2018)
75 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Tra Snider (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 02/01/2018)
76 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (With attachments) (Friedman, Robert) (Entered: 02/01/2018)
77 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Carly Graff, Randy Frazier [Note: Attorney Robert D Friedman added to party Carly Graff(pty:pla), Attorney Robert D Friedman added to party Randy Frazier(pty:pla).] (With attachments) (Friedman, Robert) Modified on 2/2/2018; this is a two-part motion of which only one part was efiled see Motion for Temporary Restraining Order dkt # 79 (srt, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 02/01/2018)
79 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (submitted as dkt # 77 ) by Randy Frazier, Carly Graff (srt, Dpty Clk) Modified on 2/28/2018 to convert event from a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order to a Motion for Preliminary Injunction per 149 (sac-qc, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 02/02/2018)
78 MOTION for Class Action Certification by Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Ira Lee Wilkins, David Smith, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, Christopher Choate [Note: Attorney Robert D Friedman added to party David Smith(pty:pla), Attorney Robert D Friedman added to party Kendallia Killman(pty:pla), Attorney Robert D Friedman added to party Linda Meachum(pty:pla), Attorney Robert D Friedman added to party Christopher Choate(pty:pla).] (With attachments) (Friedman, Robert) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: this is a two-part motion of which only one part was efiled; Correction: efiled Motion for Temporary Restraining Order at dkt # 79 (Re: 77 MOTION for Injunction - Preliminary) (srt, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
80 SUMMONS Issued by Court Clerk as to Darlene Bailey, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Terrell S Crosson, Doug Drummond, Kim Henry, Dawn Moody, William J Musseman, Jr, Don Newberry, Jim D Shofner, Rob Shofner (jln, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/02/2018)

02/02/2018 02/02/2018 02/05/2018
02/06/2018 02/07/2018 02/07/2018 02/07/2018
02/07/2018

81 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Rodney J Heggy on behalf of P D Taylor [Note: Attorney Rodney J Heggy added to party P D Taylor(pty:dft).] (Heggy, Rodney) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
82 MOTION for Hearing (Re: 77 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order ) by Randy Frazier, Carly Graff (With attachments) (Friedman, Robert) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
83 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Elizabeth Rossi on behalf of All Plaintiffs [Note: Attorney Elizabeth Rossi added to party Christopher Choate(pty:pla), Attorney Elizabeth Rossi added to party Randy Frazier(pty:pla), Attorney Elizabeth Rossi added to party Carly Graff(pty:pla), Attorney Elizabeth Rossi added to party Kendallia Killman(pty:pla), Attorney Elizabeth Rossi added to party Linda Meachum(pty:pla), Attorney Elizabeth Rossi added to party David Smith(pty:pla).] (Rossi, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/05/2018)
84 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association (Re: 76 Amended Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 02/06/2018)
85 First MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation Motions to Dismiss in (1) Official Capacity and (2) Individual Capacity by P D Taylor (Heggy, Rodney) (Entered: 02/07/2018)
86 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan that the motion is granted as requested ; granting 85 Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 02/07/2018)
87 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The (Re: 76 Amended Complaint ) by David Smith, Christopher Choate, Carly Graff, Linda Meachum, Ira Lee Wilkins, Kendallia Killman, Randy Frazier [Note: Attorney Daniel E Smolen added to party Christopher Choate(pty:pla), Attorney Daniel E Smolen added to party Randy Frazier(pty:pla), Attorney Daniel E Smolen added to party Carly Graff(pty:pla), Attorney Daniel E Smolen added to party Kendallia Killman(pty:pla), Attorney Daniel E Smolen added to party Linda Meachum(pty:pla), Attorney Daniel E Smolen added to party David Smith(pty:pla).] (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 02/07/2018)
88 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The (Re: 76 Amended Complaint ) by David Smith, Christopher Choate, Carly Graff, Linda Meachum, Ira Lee Wilkins, Kendallia Killman, Randy Frazier (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 02/07/2018)

02/07/2018 02/07/2018 02/07/2018 02/07/2018 02/07/2018 02/07/2018 02/08/2018 02/08/2018
02/08/2018

89 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Darlene Bailey (Re: 76 Amended Complaint ) by David Smith, Christopher Choate, Carly Graff, Linda Meachum, Ira Lee Wilkins, Kendallia Killman, Randy Frazier (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 02/07/2018)
90 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Don Newberry (Re: 76 Amended Complaint ) by David Smith, Christopher Choate, Carly Graff, Linda Meachum, Ira Lee Wilkins, Kendallia Killman, Randy Frazier (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 02/07/2018)
91 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Terrell S Crosson (Re: 76 Amended Complaint ) by David Smith, Christopher Choate, Carly Graff, Linda Meachum, Ira Lee Wilkins, Kendallia Killman, Randy Frazier (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 02/07/2018)
92 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Kim Henry (Re: 76 Amended Complaint ) by David Smith, Christopher Choate, Carly Graff, Linda Meachum, Ira Lee Wilkins, Kendallia Killman, Randy Frazier (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 02/07/2018)
93 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Jim D Shofner (Re: 76 Amended Complaint ) by David Smith, Christopher Choate, Carly Graff, Linda Meachum, Ira Lee Wilkins, Kendallia Killman, Randy Frazier (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 02/07/2018)
94 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Rob Shofner (Re: 76 Amended Complaint ) by David Smith, Christopher Choate, Carly Graff, Linda Meachum, Ira Lee Wilkins, Kendallia Killman, Randy Frazier (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 02/07/2018)
95 First MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in Official Capacity by P D Taylor (With attachments) (Heggy, Rodney) Modified on 2/9/2018 to seal PDF of Attachments 4, 6, 10 and 26 as they were filed unredacted; counsel will file the redacted version using the Errata/Correction event. (jln, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 02/08/2018)
96 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan - The amended complaint 76 supersedes the complaint 2 and, therefore, moots any motions to dismiss the original complaint. Therefore, Aberdeen's motion to dismiss 8 is moot without prejudice to filing a similar motion directed to the amended complaint. ; finding as moot 8 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Re: 2 Complaint, 76 Amended Complaint ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 02/08/2018)
97 ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan - The amended complaint 76 added certain new defendants and deleted certain defendants that were named

in the complaint 2 . Counsel for plaintiffs shall notify the Court by written pleading no later than close of business on 2/9/18 whether they intend to drop those defendants who are named in the complaint but not in the amended complaint, regardless of whether process has issued., setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Miscellaneous Deadline set for 2/9/2018) (Re: 2 Complaint, 76 Amended Complaint ) (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 02/08/2018)

02/08/2018

98 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan , : Counsel for P.D. Taylor, Oklahoma County Sheriff is directed to provide, forthwith and in a three-ring binder notebook for use by the Court, a paper copy of the document and/or exhibit(s) as filed at Dkt. # 95 . Said paper copy shall be a COMPLETE and EXACT duplicate of the filing AFTER it is filed with the Court, including the case and docket number information at the top of each page. Counsel shall not reorganize the filing or insert other separately docketed items. If a copy of a sealed item is ordered by the Court, then said copy shall be a separate and complete submission. (Re: 95 First MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in Official Capacity ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 02/08/2018)

02/08/2018

99 First MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction In Individual Capacity by P D Taylor (With attachments) (Heggy, Rodney) Modified on 2/9/2018 to seal PDF of Attachments 4, 6, 10 and 26 as they were filed unredacted; counsel will file the redacted version using the Errata/Correction event. (jln, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 02/08/2018)

02/08/2018 100 First MOTION for Attorney(s) Aaron Etherington to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice Counsel for PD Taylor (paid $50 PHV fee; receipt number 1085-1875465) by P D Taylor (Heggy, Rodney) (Entered: 02/08/2018)

02/08/2018

101 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan , : Counsel for P.D. Taylor, Oklahoma County Sheriff, is directed to provide, forthwith and in a three-ring binder notebook for use by the Court, a paper copy of the document and/or exhibit(s) as filed at Dkt. # 99 . Said paper copy shall be a COMPLETE and EXACT duplicate of the filing AFTER it is filed with the Court, including the case and docket number information at the top of each page. Counsel shall not reorganize the filing or insert other separately docketed items. If a copy of a sealed item is ordered by the Court, then said copy shall be a separate and complete submission. (Re: 99 First MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction In Individual Capacity ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 02/08/2018)

02/08/2018 102 ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan (re Atty Aaron Etherington for P.D. Taylor, Sheriff of Oklahoma County) ; granting 100 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 02/08/2018)

02/08/2018

103 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan - None of the sheriff defendants is a corporate entity. Therefore, corportate disclosure statements will not be required of those parties., vacating/setting aside order(s) (Re: 98 Minute Order,,,, Directing Party to Submit Courtesy Copy of Document(s),,,,,,, ) (Documents Terminated: 98 Minute Order,,,, Directing Party to Submit Courtesy Copy of Document(s),,,,,,, ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (RGG, Chambers) Modified on 2/8/2018- VACATED per 104 (srt, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 02/08/2018)

02/08/2018

104 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan 103 ENTERED IN ERROR, vacating/setting aside order(s) (Re: 103 Minute Order,,, Vacating/Setting Aside Order(s),,,,, ) (Documents Terminated: 103 Minute Order,,, Vacating/Setting Aside Order(s),,,,, ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 02/08/2018)

02/08/2018

105 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan (TO CLARIFY... 103 was vacated because it erroneously vacated 98 ; 98 stands as previously entered.) - None of the sheriff defendants is a corporate entity. Therefore, corportate disclosure statements will not be required of those parties., (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 02/08/2018)

02/08/2018

106 NOTICE of Dismissal, dismissing Derek Manning, Sheriff of Beckham County; Johnny Christian, Sheriff of Bryan County; Lennis Miller, Sheriff of Caddo County; Terry Park, Sheriff of Choctaw County; Leon Apple, Sheriff of Cimarron County; Kenny Stradley, Sheriff of Comanche County; Kent Simpson, Sheriff of Cotton County; Kenneth Tidwell, Sheriff of Custer County; Shane Booth, Sheriff of Ellis County; Larry Rhodes, Sheriff of Garvin County; Joe Johnson, Sheriff of Harmon County; Tim Turner, Sheriff of Haskell County; Jeff Smith, Sheriff of Kiowa County; Charles Dougherty, Sheriff of Lincoln County; Damon Devereaux, Sheriff of Logan County; Steve Randolph, Sheriff of Major County; Don Hewett, Sheriff of McClain County; Rob Frazier, Sheriff of Muskogee County; Charles Hanger, Sheriff of Noble County; Chris Morris, Sheriff of Pittsburg County; John Christian, Sheriff of Pontotoc County; Wayne McKinney, Sheriff of Stephens County; Devin Huckabay, Sheriff of Greer County, (Re: 2 Complaint, 76 Amended Complaint ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins (Friedman, Robert) (Entered: 02/08/2018)

02/09/2018 107 ERRATA/CORRECTION (Re: 95 First MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in Official Capacity ) by P D Taylor (With attachments) (Heggy, Rodney) (Entered: 02/09/2018)

02/09/2018 108 ERRATA/CORRECTION (Re: 99 First MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction In Individual Capacity ) by P D Taylor (With attachments) (Heggy, Rodney) (Entered: 02/09/2018)

02/12/2018

109 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson on behalf of Tony Almaguer, Darren Atha, Dennis Banther, Matt Boley, Mike Booth, Bret Bowling, Rudy Briggs, Jr, Chris Bryant, Kevin Clardy, Danny Cryer, Chris Elliott, Norman Fisher, Jeremy Floyd, Todd Gibson, Marty Grisham, Sandy Hadley, R B Hauf, Tony Head, B J Hedgecock, Devin Huckabay, Jesse James, Bryan Jump, Steve Kelley, Larry Lane, Kevin Ledbetter, Roger Levick, Marcia Maxwell, Thomas McClendon, Kevin Mitchell, Harlan Moore, Jerry Niles, Ruben Parker, Jr, Mike Reed, Roger Reeve, Eddy Rice, Jason Ritchie, Darrin Rodgers, Clay Sander, Rob Seale, Rick Silver, Jon Smith, Shannon Smith, Scott Sterling, Eddie Virden, Rick Wallace, Mike Waters, Jim Weir, Chris West, Bobby Whittington, Jeremie Wilson, Heath Winfrey, Steven Worley [Note: Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Tony Almaguer(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Darren Atha(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Dennis Banther(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Matt Boley(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Mike Booth(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Bret Bowling(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Rudy Briggs, Jr(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Chris Bryant(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Kevin Clardy(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Danny Cryer(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Chris Elliott(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Norman Fisher(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Jeremy Floyd(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Todd Gibson(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Marty Grisham(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Sandy Hadley(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party R B Hauf(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Tony Head(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party B J Hedgecock(pty:dft), , Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Jesse James(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Bryan Jump(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Steve Kelley(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Larry Lane(pty:dft),

Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Kevin Ledbetter(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Roger Levick(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Marcia Maxwell(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Thomas McClendon(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Kevin Mitchell(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Harlan Moore(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Jerry Niles(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Ruben Parker, Jr(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Mike Reed(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Roger Reeve(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Eddy Rice(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Jason Ritchie(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Darrin Rodgers(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Clay Sander(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Rob Seale(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Rick Silver(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Jon Smith(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Shannon Smith(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Scott Sterling(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Eddie Virden(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Rick Wallace(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Mike Waters(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Jim Weir(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Chris West(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Bobby Whittington(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Jeremie Wilson(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Heath Winfrey(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Calvin Hendrickson added to party Steven Worley(pty:dft).] (Hendrickson, Jeffrey) Modified on 2/13/2018 to delete terminated party (Devin Huckaby) selected as filer (sac-qc, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 02/12/2018)

02/12/2018 110 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by John R Woodard, III on behalf of Jim D Shofner [Note: Attorney John R Woodard, III added to party Jim D Shofner(pty:dft).] (Woodard, John) (Entered: 02/12/2018)

02/12/2018

111 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by John R Woodard, III on behalf of Rob Shofner [Note: Attorney John R Woodard, III added to party Rob Shofner(pty:dft).] (Woodard, John) (Entered: 02/12/2018)

02/12/2018 112 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Robert Earl Applegate on behalf of Jim D Shofner [Note: Attorney Robert Earl Applegate added to party Jim D Shofner(pty:dft).] (Applegate, Robert) (Entered: 02/12/2018)

02/12/2018 113 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Robert Earl Applegate on behalf of Rob Shofner [Note: Attorney Robert Earl Applegate added to party Rob Shofner(pty:dft).] (Applegate, Robert) (Entered: 02/12/2018)

02/12/2018 114 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Harry Anthony Parrish on behalf of Jim D Shofner [Note: Attorney Harry Anthony Parrish added to party Jim D Shofner(pty:dft).] (Parrish, Harry) (Entered: 02/12/2018)

02/12/2018

115 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Harry Anthony Parrish on behalf of Rob Shofner [Note: Attorney Harry Anthony Parrish added to party Rob Shofner(pty:dft).] (Parrish, Harry) (Entered: 02/12/2018)

02/13/2018

116 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Doug Drummond, Dawn Moody, William J Musseman, Jr, Ruben Parker, Jr (Re: 76 Amended Complaint ) by David Smith, Christopher Choate, Carly Graff, Linda Meachum, Ira Lee Wilkins, Kendallia Killman, Randy Frazier (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 02/13/2018)

02/13/2018

NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: terminated party selected as a filer; Correction: removed terminated party (Devin Huckaby) selected as a filer (Re: 109 Appearance - Attorney,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ) (sac-qc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/13/2018)

02/13/2018

117 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan - Joe Lester, Sheriff of Cleveland County is terminated as a defendant. Cleveland County Sheriff was renamed in the Amended Complaint 76 as Todd Gibson. Counsel has appeared for renamed defendant., terminating party Joe Lester (Sheriff of Cleveland County) (Re: 109 Appearance Attorney,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 76 Amended Complaint ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 02/13/2018)

02/13/2018

118 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan - Tra Snider, Sheriff of Harper County is terminated as a defendant. Harper County Sheriff was renamed in the Amended Complaint 76 as Thomas McClendon. Counsel has appeared for renamed defendant., terminating party Tra Snider (Sheriff of Harper County) (Re: 109 Appearance Attorney,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 76 Amended Complaint ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (RGG, Chambers) (Entered: 02/13/2018)

02/13/2018

119 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Chris M Warzecha on behalf of Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association [Note: Attorney Chris M Warzecha added to party Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association(pty:dft).] (Warzecha, Chris) (Entered: 02/13/2018)

02/13/2018

120 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Robert Dale James on behalf of Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association [Note: Attorney Robert Dale James added to party Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association(pty:dft).] (James, Robert) (Entered: 02/13/2018)

02/13/2018

121 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Isaac Robertson Ellis on behalf of Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association [Note: Attorney Isaac Robertson Ellis added to party Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association(pty:dft).] (Ellis, Isaac) (Entered: 02/13/2018)

02/13/2018

122 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Melodie Freeman-Burney on behalf of Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association [Note: Attorney Melodie FreemanBurney added to party Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association(pty:dft).] (Freeman-Burney, Melodie) (Entered: 02/13/2018)

02/14/2018

123 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Joel L Wohlgemuth on behalf of Darlene Bailey, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado [Note: Attorney Joel L Wohlgemuth added to party Darlene Bailey(pty:dft), Attorney Joel L Wohlgemuth added to party Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The(pty:dft), Attorney Joel L Wohlgemuth added to party Don Newberry(pty:dft), Attorney Joel L Wohlgemuth added to party Vic Regalado(pty:dft).] (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 02/14/2018)

02/14/2018

124 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Jo Lynn Jeter on behalf of Darlene Bailey, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado [Note: Attorney Jo Lynn Jeter added to party Darlene Bailey(pty:dft), Attorney Jo Lynn Jeter added to party Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The(pty:dft), Attorney Jo Lynn Jeter added to party Don Newberry(pty:dft), Attorney Jo Lynn Jeter added to party Vic Regalado(pty:dft).] (Jeter, Jo) (Entered: 02/14/2018)

02/14/2018

125 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Emily Brooks Kosmider on behalf of Darlene Bailey, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado [Note: Attorney Emily Brooks Kosmider added to party Darlene Bailey(pty:dft), Attorney Emily Brooks Kosmider added to party Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The(pty:dft), Attorney Emily Brooks Kosmider added to party Don Newberry(pty:dft), Attorney Emily Brooks Kosmider added to party Vic Regalado(pty:dft).] (Kosmider, Emily) (Entered: 02/14/2018)

02/14/2018 126 MINUTE ORDER by Court Clerk:, recusing Judge Claire V Eagan. Judge John E Dowdell reassigned to case., changing case

number to 17-CV-606-JED-JFJ (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/14/2018)

02/14/2018

127 MINUTE ORDER by Court Clerk randomly reassigning case due to conflict, changing case number to 17-CV-606-GKF-JFJ, reassigning case to Chief Judge Gregory K Frizzell, Judge John E Dowdell no longer assigned to case (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/14/2018)

02/14/2018

128 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Thomas Adrian LeBlanc on behalf of Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The, Kim Henry, Scott Walton [Note: Attorney Thomas Adrian LeBlanc added to party Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The(pty:dft), Attorney Thomas Adrian LeBlanc added to party Kim Henry(pty:dft), Attorney Thomas Adrian LeBlanc added to party Scott Walton(pty:dft).] (LeBlanc, Thomas) (Entered: 02/14/2018)

02/14/2018

129 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Todd Michael Wagner on behalf of Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The, Kim Henry, Scott Walton [Note: Attorney Todd Michael Wagner added to party Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The(pty:dft), Attorney Todd Michael Wagner added to party Kim Henry(pty:dft), Attorney Todd Michael Wagner added to party Scott Walton(pty:dft).] (Wagner, Todd) (Entered: 02/14/2018)

02/15/2018

130 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Robert Lamar Betts on behalf of Tony Almaguer, Darren Atha, Dennis Banther, Matt Boley, Mike Booth, Bret Bowling, Rudy Briggs, Jr, Chris Bryant, Kevin Clardy, Danny Cryer, Chris Elliott, Norman Fisher, Jeremy Floyd, Todd Gibson, Marty Grisham, Sandy Hadley, R B Hauf, Tony Head, B J Hedgecock, Jesse James, Bryan Jump, Steve Kelley, Larry Lane, Kevin Ledbetter, Roger Levick, Marcia Maxwell, Thomas McClendon, Kevin Mitchell, Harlan Moore, Jerry Niles, Ruben Parker, Jr, Mike Reed, Roger Reeve, Eddy Rice, Jason Ritchie, Darrin Rodgers, Clay Sander, Rob Seale, Rick Silver, Jon Smith, Shannon Smith, Scott Sterling, Eddie Virden, Rick Wallace, Mike Waters, Jim Weir, Chris West, Bobby Whittington, Jeremie Wilson, Heath Winfrey, Steven Worley [Note: Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Tony Almaguer(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Darren Atha(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Dennis Banther(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Matt Boley(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Mike Booth(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Bret Bowling(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Rudy Briggs, Jr(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Chris Bryant(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Kevin

Clardy(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Danny Cryer(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Chris Elliott(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Norman Fisher(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Jeremy Floyd(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Todd Gibson(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Marty Grisham(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Sandy Hadley(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party R B Hauf(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Tony Head(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party B J Hedgecock(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Jesse James(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Bryan Jump(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Steve Kelley(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Larry Lane(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Kevin Ledbetter(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Roger Levick(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Marcia Maxwell(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Thomas McClendon(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Kevin Mitchell(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Harlan Moore(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Jerry Niles(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Ruben Parker, Jr(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Mike Reed(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Roger Reeve(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Eddy Rice(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Jason Ritchie(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Darrin Rodgers(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Clay Sander(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Rob Seale(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Rick Silver(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Jon Smith(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Shannon Smith(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Scott Sterling(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Eddie Virden(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Rick Wallace(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Mike Waters(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Jim Weir(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Chris West(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Bobby Whittington(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Jeremie Wilson(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Heath Winfrey(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Lamar Betts added to party Steven Worley(pty:dft).] (Betts, Robert) (Entered: 02/15/2018)
02/15/2018 131 MINUTE ORDER by Court Clerk , directing Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association to file a Corporate Disclosure Statement pursuant to

FRCvP 7.1 within seven (7) days of this order, if they have not already done so. The parties shall use the form entitled Corporate Disclosure Statement available on the Courts website (please do not refile if already filed on non-court form unless directed to do so). If you have already filed your Corporate Disclosure Statement in this case, you are reminded to file a Supplemental Corporate Disclosure Statement within a reasonable time of any change in the information that the statement requires. (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (jln, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/15/2018)

02/15/2018

132 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by April Danielle Kelso on behalf of All Defendants [Note: Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Tony Almaguer(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Darren Atha(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Dennis Banther(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Matt Boley(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Mike Booth(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Bret Bowling(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Rudy Briggs, Jr(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Chris Bryant(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Kevin Clardy(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Danny Cryer(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Chris Elliott(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Norman Fisher(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Jeremy Floyd(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Todd Gibson(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Marty Grisham(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Sandy Hadley(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party R B Hauf(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Tony Head(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party B J Hedgecock(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Jesse James(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Bryan Jump(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Steve Kelley(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Larry Lane(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Kevin Ledbetter(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Roger Levick(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Marcia Maxwell(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Thomas McClendon(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Kevin Mitchell(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Harlan Moore(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Jerry Niles(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Ruben Parker, Jr(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Mike Reed(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Roger Reeve(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Eddy Rice(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Jason

Ritchie(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Darrin Rodgers(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Clay Sander(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Rob Seale(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Rick Silver(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Jon Smith(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Shannon Smith(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Scott Sterling(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Eddie Virden(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Rick Wallace(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Mike Waters(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Jim Weir(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Chris West(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Bobby Whittington(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Jeremie Wilson(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Heath Winfrey(pty:dft), Attorney April Danielle Kelso added to party Steven Worley(pty:dft).] (Kelso, April) Modified on 2/15/2018 to remove terminated parties as filers behind the scenes (sac-qc, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 02/15/2018)

02/15/2018

133 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Robert Stevens Lafferrandre on behalf of Tony Almaguer, Darren Atha, Dennis Banther, Matt Boley, Mike Booth, Bret Bowling, Rudy Briggs, Jr, Chris Bryant, Kevin Clardy, Danny Cryer, Chris Elliott, Norman Fisher, Jeremy Floyd, Todd Gibson, Marty Grisham, Sandy Hadley, R B Hauf, Tony Head, B J Hedgecock, Jesse James, Bryan Jump, Steve Kelley, Larry Lane, Kevin Ledbetter, Roger Levick, Marcia Maxwell, Thomas McClendon, Kevin Mitchell, Harlan Moore, Jerry Niles, Ruben Parker, Jr, Mike Reed, Roger Reeve, Eddy Rice, Jason Ritchie, Darrin Rodgers, Clay Sander, Rob Seale, Rick Silver, Jon Smith, Shannon Smith, Scott Sterling, Eddie Virden, Rick Wallace, Mike Waters, Jim Weir, Chris West, Bobby Whittington, Jeremie Wilson, Heath Winfrey, Steven Worley [Note: Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Tony Almaguer(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Darren Atha(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Dennis Banther(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Matt Boley(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Mike Booth(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Bret Bowling(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Rudy Briggs, Jr(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Chris Bryant(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Kevin Clardy(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Danny Cryer(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Chris Elliott(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Norman Fisher(pty:dft), Attorney Robert

Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Jeremy Floyd(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Todd Gibson(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Marty Grisham(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Sandy Hadley(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party R B Hauf(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Tony Head(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party B J Hedgecock(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Jesse James(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Bryan Jump(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Steve Kelley(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Larry Lane(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Kevin Ledbetter(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Roger Levick(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Marcia Maxwell(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Thomas McClendon(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Kevin Mitchell(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Harlan Moore(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Jerry Niles(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Ruben Parker, Jr(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Mike Reed(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Roger Reeve(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Eddy Rice(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Jason Ritchie(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Darrin Rodgers(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Clay Sander(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Rob Seale(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Rick Silver(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Jon Smith(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Shannon Smith(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Scott Sterling(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Eddie Virden(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Rick Wallace(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Mike Waters(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Jim Weir(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Chris West(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Bobby Whittington(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Jeremie Wilson(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Heath Winfrey(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Stevens Lafferrandre added to party Steven Worley(pty:dft).] (Lafferrandre, Robert) (Entered: 02/15/2018)

02/15/2018 134 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Aaron Etherington on behalf of P D Taylor [Note: Attorney Aaron Etherington added to party P D Taylor(pty:dft).] (Etherington, Aaron) (Entered: 02/15/2018)

02/15/2018

135 MINUTE ORDER by Court Clerk randomly, reassigning case to Judge Terence Kern, due to conflict, Chief Judge Gregory K Frizzell no longer assigned to case, changing case number to 17-CV-606-TCKJFJ (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/15/2018)

02/15/2018 136 Second MOTION for Hearing (Re: 77 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order ) by Randy Frazier, Carly Graff (Friedman, Robert) (Entered: 02/15/2018)

02/15/2018

137 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Randall J Wood on behalf of Tony Almaguer, Darren Atha, Dennis Banther, Matt Boley, Mike Booth, Bret Bowling, Rudy Briggs, Jr, Chris Bryant, Kevin Clardy, Danny Cryer, Chris Elliott, Norman Fisher, Jeremy Floyd, Todd Gibson, Marty Grisham, Sandy Hadley, R B Hauf, Tony Head, B J Hedgecock, Jesse James, Bryan Jump, Steve Kelley, Larry Lane, Kevin Ledbetter, Roger Levick, Marcia Maxwell, Thomas McClendon, Kevin Mitchell, Harlan Moore, Jerry Niles, Ruben Parker, Jr, Mike Reed, Roger Reeve, Eddy Rice, Jason Ritchie, Darrin Rodgers, Clay Sander, Rob Seale, Rick Silver, Jon Smith, Shannon Smith, Scott Sterling, Eddie Virden, Rick Wallace, Mike Waters, Jim Weir, Chris West, Bobby Whittington, Jeremie Wilson, Heath Winfrey, Steven Worley [Note: Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Tony Almaguer(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Darren Atha(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Dennis Banther(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Matt Boley(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Mike Booth(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Bret Bowling(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Rudy Briggs, Jr(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Chris Bryant(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Kevin Clardy(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Danny Cryer(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Chris Elliott(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Norman Fisher(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Jeremy Floyd(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Todd Gibson(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Marty Grisham(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Sandy Hadley(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party R B Hauf(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Tony Head(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party B J Hedgecock(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Jesse James(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Bryan

Jump(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Steve Kelley(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Larry Lane(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Kevin Ledbetter(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Roger Levick(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Marcia Maxwell(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Thomas McClendon(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Kevin Mitchell(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Harlan Moore(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Jerry Niles(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Ruben Parker, Jr(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Mike Reed(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Roger Reeve(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Eddy Rice(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Jason Ritchie(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Darrin Rodgers(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Clay Sander(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Rob Seale(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Rick Silver(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Jon Smith(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Shannon Smith(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Scott Sterling(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Eddie Virden(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Rick Wallace(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Mike Waters(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Jim Weir(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Chris West(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Bobby Whittington(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Jeremie Wilson(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Heath Winfrey(pty:dft), Attorney Randall J Wood added to party Steven Worley(pty:dft).] (Wood, Randall) (Entered: 02/15/2018)

02/16/2018

138 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Stefanie Erin Lawson on behalf of Terrell S Crosson, Doug Drummond, Dawn Moody, William J Musseman, Jr [Note: Attorney Stefanie Erin Lawson added to party Terrell S Crosson(pty:dft), Attorney Stefanie Erin Lawson added to party Doug Drummond(pty:dft), Attorney Stefanie Erin Lawson added to party Dawn Moody(pty:dft), Attorney Stefanie Erin Lawson added to party William J Musseman, Jr(pty:dft).] (Lawson, Stefanie) (Entered: 02/16/2018)

02/16/2018

139 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer , Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion (Re: 76 Amended Complaint, 99 First MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction In Individual Capacity, 95 First MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in Official Capacity ) by Christopher Choate, Randy

Frazier, Carly Graff, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins (Friedman, Robert) (Entered: 02/16/2018)

02/19/2018

140 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Harry Anthony Parrish on behalf of Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc. [Note: Attorney Harry Anthony Parrish added to party Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc.(pty:dft).] (Parrish, Harry) (Entered: 02/19/2018)

02/19/2018

141 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 79 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order ) by Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc. ; (Parrish, Harry) (Entered: 02/19/2018)

02/21/2018

142 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 77 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 79 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (submitted as dkt # 77 )) by Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The, Kim Henry, Scott Walton ; (Wagner, Todd) Modified on 2/22/2018 to add link to 79 (sac-qc, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 02/21/2018)

02/21/2018

143 EXHIBIT(S) Inadvertently Not Attached Thereto (Re: 142 Response in Opposition to Motion ) by Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The, Kim Henry, Scott Walton (With attachments) (Wagner, Todd) (Entered: 02/21/2018)

02/22/2018 144 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association (Ellis, Isaac) (Entered: 02/22/2018)

02/22/2018

145 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 79 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, 77 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) by Darlene Bailey, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado ; (With attachments) (Jeter, Jo) (Entered: 02/22/2018)

02/23/2018 146 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern for Joint Status Report, directing parties to file joint status report ( Status Report due by 3/9/2018) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 02/23/2018)

02/27/2018

147 RESPONSE in Support of Motion (Re: 139 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion ) by Terrell S Crosson, Doug Drummond, Dawn Moody, William J Musseman, Jr ; (Lawson, Stefanie) (Entered: 02/27/2018)

02/28/2018

148 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Miscellaneous Deadline set for 3/19/2018); granting 139 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer; granting 139 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion (Re: 95 First MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in Official

Capacity, 99 First MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction In Individual Capacity, 78 MOTION for Class Action Certification , 76 Amended Complaint ) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 02/28/2018)

02/28/2018

149 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - Plaintiffs' Motion for Hearing (Doc. 82) and Second Motion for Hearing (Doc. 136) are GRANTED. The Court converts Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 79) and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 77) to a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 77) is set for March 29, 2018, at 1:30 p.m. ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Motion Hearing set for 3/29/2018 at 01:30 PM before Judge Terence Kern); granting 82 Motion for Hearing; granting 136 Motion for Hearing (Re: 77 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 79 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 02/28/2018)

03/07/2018

150 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation by Randy Frazier, Carly Graff [Note: Attorney Katherine Hubbard added to party Randy Frazier(pty:pla), Attorney Katherine Hubbard added to party Carly Graff(pty:pla).] (Hubbard, Katherine) (Entered: 03/07/2018)

03/08/2018

151 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit (Doc. 150) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs may file a consolidated reply brief in support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction of not more than fifteen (15) pages in length. ; granting 150 Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation (Re: 77 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 152 MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation by Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc., Jim D Shofner, Rob Shofner (Woodard, John) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018

153 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 77 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) by Randy Frazier, Carly Graff ; (Hubbard, Katherine) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/09/2018

154 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - Plaintiffs are hereby directed to file a Response to Defendant Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc.'s and Defendants Jim Shofner's and Rob Shofner's Motion for Leave to File Two Briefs in Excess of Twenty-Five Pages (Doc. 152) by March 13, 2018., setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Responses due by 3/13/2018) (Re: 152 MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page

Limitation ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 03/09/2018)

03/09/2018

155 MOTION for Leave to File Two Briefs in Excess of Twenty-Five Pages Each by Tony Almaguer, Darren Atha, Dennis Banther, Matt Boley, Mike Booth, Bret Bowling, Rudy Briggs, Jr, Chris Bryant, Kevin Clardy, Danny Cryer, Chris Elliott, Norman Fisher, Jeremy Floyd, Todd Gibson, Marty Grisham, Sandy Hadley, R B Hauf, Tony Head, B J Hedgecock, Jesse James, Bryan Jump, Steve Kelley, Larry Lane, Kevin Ledbetter, Roger Levick, Marcia Maxwell, Thomas McClendon, Kevin Mitchell, Harlan Moore, Jerry Niles, Ruben Parker, Jr, Mike Reed, Roger Reeve, Eddy Rice, Jason Ritchie, Darrin Rodgers, Clay Sander, Rob Seale, Rick Silver, Jon Smith, Shannon Smith, Scott Sterling, Eddie Virden, Rick Wallace, Mike Waters, Jim Weir, Chris West, Bobby Whittington, Jeremie Wilson, Heath Winfrey, Steven Worley (Hendrickson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/09/2018)

03/09/2018

156 JOINT STATUS REPORT by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins [Note: Attorney Robert Murray Blakemore added to party Christopher Choate(pty:pla), Attorney Robert Murray Blakemore added to party Randy Frazier(pty:pla), Attorney Robert Murray Blakemore added to party Carly Graff(pty:pla), Attorney Robert Murray Blakemore added to party Kendallia Killman(pty:pla), Attorney Robert Murray Blakemore added to party Linda Meachum(pty:pla), Attorney Robert Murray Blakemore added to party David Smith(pty:pla).] (Blakemore, Robert) (Entered: 03/09/2018)

03/12/2018 157 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation by Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association (Warzecha, Chris) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

03/13/2018

158 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 152 MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation , 155 MOTION for Leave to File Two Briefs in Excess of Twenty-Five Pages Each ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins ; (Friedman, Robert) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/13/2018

159 MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation on Motions to Dismiss by Darlene Bailey, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado (Jeter, Jo) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/13/2018

160 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 155 MOTION for Leave to File Two Briefs in Excess of Twenty-Five Pages Each ) by Tony Almaguer, Darren Atha, Dennis Banther, Matt Boley, Mike Booth, Bret Bowling, Rudy Briggs, Jr, Chris Bryant, Kevin Clardy, Danny Cryer, Chris

Elliott, Norman Fisher, Jeremy Floyd, Todd Gibson, Marty Grisham, Sandy Hadley, R B Hauf, Tony Head, B J Hedgecock, Jesse James, Bryan Jump, Steve Kelley, Larry Lane, Kevin Ledbetter, Roger Levick, Marcia Maxwell, Thomas McClendon, Kevin Mitchell, Harlan Moore, Jerry Niles, Ruben Parker, Jr, Mike Reed, Roger Reeve, Eddy Rice, Jason Ritchie, Darrin Rodgers, Clay Sander, Rob Seale, Rick Silver, Jon Smith, Shannon Smith, Scott Sterling, Eddie Virden, Rick Wallace, Mike Waters, Jim Weir, Chris West, Bobby Whittington, Jeremie Wilson, Heath Winfrey, Steven Worley ; (With attachments) (Hendrickson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/14/2018

161 MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation by Terrell S Crosson, Doug Drummond, Dawn Moody, William J Musseman, Jr (Lawson, Stefanie) Modified on 3/15/2018 to correct event (srt, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 03/14/2018)

03/14/2018

162 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 159 MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation on Motions to Dismiss ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins ; (Friedman, Robert) (Entered: 03/14/2018)

03/15/2018

NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: wrong event (Motion for Leave to File Document(s)); Correction: corrected event (Motion to Exceed Page Limitation) (Re: 161 MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation ) (srt, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/15/2018)

03/15/2018

163 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - Due to court conflict, the motion hearing on 3/29/2018 is hereby reset for 4/18/2018 at 1:30 PM, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Motion Hearing set for 4/18/2018 at 01:30 PM before Judge Terence Kern) (Re: 77 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 03/15/2018)

03/15/2018

164 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Leave to File Surreply (Re: 153 Reply to Response to Motion ) by Darlene Bailey, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado (Jeter, Jo) (Entered: 03/15/2018)

03/16/2018

165 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; denying 152 Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation; granting in part and denying in part 155 Motion for Leave to File Document(s); denying 157 Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation; denying 159 Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation; granting 161 Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation (Re: 158 Response in Opposition to

Motion, 162 Response in Opposition to Motion, ) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

03/16/2018

166 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer (Re: 76 Amended Complaint ) by Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc., Tony Almaguer, Darren Atha, Darlene Bailey, Dennis Banther, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Matt Boley, Mike Booth, Bret Bowling, Rudy Briggs, Jr, Chris Bryant, Kevin Clardy, Danny Cryer, Chris Elliott, Norman Fisher, Jeremy Floyd, Todd Gibson, Marty Grisham, Sandy Hadley, R B Hauf, Tony Head, B J Hedgecock, Kim Henry, Jesse James, Bryan Jump, Steve Kelley, Larry Lane, Kevin Ledbetter, Roger Levick, Marcia Maxwell, Thomas McClendon, Kevin Mitchell, Harlan Moore, Don Newberry, Jerry Niles, Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association, Ruben Parker, Jr, Mike Reed, Roger Reeve, Vic Regalado, Eddy Rice, Jason Ritchie, Darrin Rodgers, Clay Sander, Rob Seale, Jim D Shofner, Rob Shofner, Rick Silver, Jon Smith, Shannon Smith, Scott Sterling, P D Taylor, Eddie Virden, Rick Wallace, Scott Walton, Mike Waters, Jim Weir, Chris West, Bobby Whittington (Jeter, Jo) Modified on 3/19/2018 (sac-qc, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 03/16/2018)

03/16/2018 167 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 164 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Leave to File Surreply ) by Randy Frazier, Carly Graff ; (With attachments) (Friedman, Robert) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

03/19/2018

NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: selected terminated parties as filers; Correction: deleted Tra Snider, Joe Lester and Rob Frazier as filers (Re: 166 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer ) (sac-qc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/19/2018)

03/19/2018

168 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - The Parties' Motion for Extension of Time for Defendants to File Rule 12 Motions and for Plaintiffs to Respond (Doc. 166) is GRANTED. All Defendants must file any Motions pursuant to Rule 12 by March 23, 2018. Plaintiffs must file any responses to any Rule 12 Motions by May 7, 2018 and all Defendants replies are due by May 21, 2018. ; granting 166 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 03/19/2018)

03/19/2018 169 MOTION to Dismiss and Brief in Support by Terrell S Crosson, Doug Drummond, Dawn Moody, William J Musseman, Jr (Lawson, Stefanie) (Entered: 03/19/2018)

03/20/2018 170 MOTION for Protective Order and Brief in Support by Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The, Kim Henry,

Scott Walton (With attachments) (Wagner, Todd) (Entered: 03/20/2018)

03/20/2018

171 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - Tulsa County Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Surreply (Doc. 164) is GRANTED. Tulsa County Defendants may file a surreply of not more than ten (10) pages by March 27, 2018. Plaintiffs' Partial Opposition to Tulsa County Defendants' Motion (Doc. 167) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs' may respond to the Tulsa County Defendants' surreply of not more than five (5) pages by April 2, 2018. ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Replies due by 3/27/2018, Responses due by 4/2/2018); granting 164 Motion for Leave to File Document(s) (Re: 77 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 167 Response in Opposition to Motion ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 03/20/2018)

03/21/2018

172 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern (SHOW CAUSE ORDER), directing Plaintiff to show cause( Response to Order to Show Cause due by 4/2/2018) (Re: 77 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 03/21/2018)

03/22/2018

173 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Douglas Allen Wilson on behalf of Darlene Bailey, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado [Note: Attorney Douglas Allen Wilson added to party Darlene Bailey(pty:dft), Attorney Douglas Allen Wilson added to party Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The(pty:dft), Attorney Douglas Allen Wilson added to party Don Newberry(pty:dft), Attorney Douglas Allen Wilson added to party Vic Regalado(pty:dft).] (Wilson, Douglas) (Entered: 03/22/2018)

03/22/2018

174 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Kimberly Majors Hall on behalf of Darlene Bailey, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado [Note: Attorney Kimberly Majors Hall added to party Darlene Bailey(pty:dft), Attorney Kimberly Majors Hall added to party Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The(pty:dft), Attorney Kimberly Majors Hall added to party Don Newberry(pty:dft), Attorney Kimberly Majors Hall added to party Vic Regalado(pty:dft).] (Hall, Kimberly) (Entered: 03/22/2018)

03/23/2018 175 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint by Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc. (Applegate, Robert) (Entered: 03/23/2018)

03/23/2018 176 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint by Jim D Shofner, Rob Shofner (Applegate, Robert) (Entered: 03/23/2018)

03/23/2018 177 MOTION to Dismiss by Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The, Kim Henry, Scott Walton (With attachments) (LeBlanc, Thomas) (Entered: 03/23/2018)

03/23/2018

178 MOTION to Dismiss on behalf of Defendant Rogers County Court Clerk Kim Henry (Individual Capacity) and Defendant Rogers County Sheriff Scott Walton (Individual Capacity) by Kim Henry, Scott Walton (LeBlanc, Thomas) (Entered: 03/23/2018)

03/23/2018 179 MOTION to Dismiss and Brief in Support by Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association (Ellis, Isaac) (Entered: 03/23/2018)

03/23/2018 180 MOTION to Dismiss by Darlene Bailey (Jeter, Jo) (Entered: 03/23/2018)

03/23/2018

181 MOTION to Dismiss by Darlene Bailey, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado (Jeter, Jo) (Entered: 03/23/2018)

03/23/2018 182 MOTION to Dismiss by Don Newberry (Jeter, Jo) (Entered: 03/23/2018)

03/23/2018 183 MOTION to Dismiss by Vic Regalado (Jeter, Jo) (Entered: 03/23/2018)

03/23/2018

184 MOTION to Dismiss In Their Official Capacities by Tony Almaguer, Darren Atha, Dennis Banther, Matt Boley, Mike Booth, Bret Bowling, Rudy Briggs, Jr, Chris Bryant, Kevin Clardy, Danny Cryer, Chris Elliott, Norman Fisher, Jeremy Floyd, Todd Gibson, Marty Grisham, Sandy Hadley, R B Hauf, Tony Head, B J Hedgecock, Jesse James, Bryan Jump, Steve Kelley, Larry Lane, Kevin Ledbetter, Roger Levick, Marcia Maxwell, Thomas McClendon, Kevin Mitchell, Harlan Moore, Jerry Niles, Ruben Parker, Jr, Mike Reed, Roger Reeve, Eddy Rice, Jason Ritchie, Darrin Rodgers, Clay Sander, Rob Seale, Rick Silver, Jon Smith, Shannon Smith, Scott Sterling, Eddie Virden, Rick Wallace, Mike Waters, Jim Weir, Chris West, Bobby Whittington, Jeremie Wilson, Heath Winfrey, Steven Worley (With attachments) (Lafferrandre, Robert) (Entered: 03/23/2018)

03/23/2018

185 MOTION to Dismiss in their Individual Capacities by Tony Almaguer, Darren Atha, Dennis Banther, Matt Boley, Mike Booth, Bret Bowling, Rudy Briggs, Jr, Chris Bryant, Kevin Clardy, Danny Cryer, Chris Elliott, Norman Fisher, Jeremy Floyd, Todd Gibson, Marty Grisham, Sandy Hadley, R B Hauf, Tony Head, B J Hedgecock, Jesse James, Bryan Jump, Steve Kelley, Larry Lane, Kevin Ledbetter, Roger Levick, Marcia Maxwell, Thomas McClendon, Kevin Mitchell, Harlan Moore, Jerry Niles, Ruben Parker, Jr, Mike Reed, Roger Reeve, Eddy Rice, Jason Ritchie, Darrin Rodgers, Clay Sander, Rob Seale, Rick Silver,

Jon Smith, Shannon Smith, Scott Sterling, Eddie Virden, Rick Wallace, Mike Waters, Jim Weir, Chris West, Bobby Whittington, Jeremie Wilson, Heath Winfrey, Steven Worley (Lafferrandre, Robert) (Entered: 03/23/2018)

03/26/2018

186 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(2), the Court finds good cause for delay in issuing a scheduling order in this case, as Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 77) and Defendants have filed Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 95, 99, 169, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, and 185), which should first be resolved. (Re: 156 Joint Status Report per Local Rule 16.1,, ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (srt, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/26/2018)

03/27/2018

187 SURREPLY to Motion (Re: 77 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) by Darlene Bailey, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado ; (Jeter, Jo) (Entered: 03/27/2018)

03/28/2018

188 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 170 MOTION for Protective Order and Brief in Support ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins ; (With attachments) (Friedman, Robert) (Entered: 03/28/2018)

03/28/2018 189 RESPONSE to Order to Show Cause (Re: 172 Order, Directing Party to Show Cause, ) by Randy Frazier, Carly Graff (With attachments) (Friedman, Robert) (Entered: 03/28/2018)

03/30/2018

190 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - Pursuant to Plaintiffs' Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause (Doc. 189), the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, set for April 18, 2018 (Doc. 163) is hereby stricken., striking/terminating deadline(s)/Hearing(s) (Re: 189 Response to Order to Show Cause ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 03/30/2018)

04/02/2018 191 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 77 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) by Randy Frazier, Carly Graff ; (Hubbard, Katherine) (Entered: 04/02/2018)

04/03/2018

192 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jodi F Jayne Defendants' Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 170) is set for hearing on Tuesday, April 24, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., Magistrate Courtroom No. 1, third floor. Defendants' reply shall be filed by Tuesday, April 10, 2018, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Replies due by 4/10/2018, Motion Hearing set for 4/24/2018 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Jodi F Jayne) (Re: 170 MOTION for Protective Order and Brief in

Support ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/03/2018)

04/10/2018

193 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 170 MOTION for Protective Order and Brief in Support ) by Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The, Kim Henry, Scott Walton ; (Wagner, Todd) (Entered: 04/10/2018)

04/13/2018

194 MOTION for Protective Order and Brief in Support by Darlene Bailey, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado (With attachments) (Jeter, Jo) (Entered: 04/13/2018)

04/20/2018

195 MOTION for Hearing (Re: 194 MOTION for Protective Order and Brief in Support ) by Darlene Bailey, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado (Jeter, Jo) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

04/20/2018

196 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern , referring motion(s) to Magistrate Judge Jayne (Re: 195 MOTION for Hearing ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

04/20/2018

197 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 194 MOTION for Protective Order and Brief in Support ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins ; (With attachments) (Friedman, Robert) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

04/20/2018

198 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jodi F Jayne Tulsa County Defendants' Motion to Set Hearing (ECF No. 195) is GRANTED, and Tulsa County Defendants' Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 194) is set for hearing on Tuesday, April 24, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Motion Hearing set for 4/24/2018 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Jodi F Jayne); granting 195 Motion for Hearing (Re: 194 MOTION for Protective Order and Brief in Support ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (kah, Chambers) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

04/24/2018

199 MINUTES of Proceedings - held before Magistrate Judge Jodi F Jayne: Motion Hearing held on 4/24/2018 ; striking/terminating deadline(s)/Hearing(s); denying 194 Motion for Protective Order; denying 170 Motion for Protective Order (Re: 170 MOTION for Protective Order and Brief in Support, 194 MOTION for Protective Order and Brief in Support ) (Court Reporter: C1) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/24/2018)

05/03/2018

200 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion (Re: 183 MOTION to Dismiss , 175 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, 179 MOTION to Dismiss and Brief in Support, 95 First MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in Official Capacity, 177 MOTION to Dismiss , 169 MOTION to Dismiss and Brief in Support, 180 MOTION to Dismiss , 181 MOTION to Dismiss , 178 MOTION to Dismiss on behalf of Defendant Rogers County Court Clerk Kim Henry (Individual Capacity) and Defendant Rogers County Sheriff Scott Walton (Individual Capacity), 185 MOTION to Dismiss in their Individual Capacities, 176 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, 99 First MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction In Individual Capacity, 184 MOTION to Dismiss In Their Official Capacities, 182 MOTION to Dismiss ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins (With attachments) (Friedman, Robert) (Entered: 05/03/2018)

05/04/2018

201 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 200) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs will respond to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss no later than May 21, 2018. ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Responses due by 5/21/2018, Replies due by 6/4/2018); granting 200 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion (Re: 180 MOTION to Dismiss , 177 MOTION to Dismiss , 184 MOTION to Dismiss In Their Official Capacities, 179 MOTION to Dismiss and Brief in Support, 175 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, 178 MOTION to Dismiss on behalf of Defendant Rogers County Court Clerk Kim Henry (Individual Capacity) and Defendant Rogers County Sheriff Scott Walton (Individual Capacity), 181 MOTION to Dismiss , 185 MOTION to Dismiss in their Individual Capacities, 99 First MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction In Individual Capacity, 183 MOTION to Dismiss , 176 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, 169 MOTION to Dismiss and Brief in Support, 95 First MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in Official Capacity ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/04/2018)

05/15/2018

202 Opposed MOTION to Amend Amended Complaint, MOTION to Deny Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as Moot (Re: 76 Amended Complaint, 175 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, 179 MOTION to Dismiss and Brief in Support, 95 First MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in Official

Capacity, 177 MOTION to Dismiss , 169 MOTION to Dismiss and Brief in Support, 180 MOTION to Dismiss , 181 MOTION to Dismiss , 178 MOTION to Dismiss on behalf of Defendant Rogers County Court Clerk Kim Henry (Individual Capacity) and Defendant Rogers County Sheriff Scott Walton (Individual Capacity), 183 MOTION to Dismiss , 185 MOTION to Dismiss in their Individual Capacities, 176 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, 99 First MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction In Individual Capacity, 184 MOTION to Dismiss In Their Official Capacities, 182 MOTION to Dismiss ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins, Melanie Holmes [Note: Attorney Seth T Wayne added to party Christopher Choate(pty:pla), Attorney Seth T Wayne added to party Randy Frazier(pty:pla), Attorney Seth T Wayne added to party Carly Graff(pty:pla), Attorney Seth T Wayne added to party Kendallia Killman(pty:pla), Attorney Seth T Wayne added to party Linda Meachum(pty:pla), Attorney Seth T Wayne added to party David Smith(pty:pla), Attorney Seth T Wayne added to party Melanie Holmes(pty:pla).] (With attachments) (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 05/15/2018)

05/15/2018

203 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 95, 99, 169, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, and 185) are STAYED pending a ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint and to Deny Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as Moot ("Motion to Amend") (Doc. 202). All briefing deadlines arising from the Motions to Dismiss are suspended until further notice. The Court will set a new briefing schedule, if necessary, upon ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend. (Re: 183 MOTION to Dismiss , 185 MOTION to Dismiss in their Individual Capacities, 175 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, 179 MOTION to Dismiss and Brief in Support, 176 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, 99 First MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction In Individual Capacity, 184 MOTION to Dismiss In Their Official Capacities, 95 First MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in Official Capacity, 177 MOTION to Dismiss , 202 Opposed MOTION to Amend Amended Complaint MOTION to Deny Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as Moot , 169 MOTION to Dismiss and Brief in Support, 180 MOTION to Dismiss , 181 MOTION to Dismiss , 182 MOTION to Dismiss , 178 MOTION to Dismiss on behalf of Defendant Rogers County Court Clerk Kim Henry (Individual Capacity) and Defendant Rogers County Sheriff Scott Walton (Individual Capacity) ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 05/15/2018)

05/15/2018

204 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 202 Opposed MOTION to Amend Amended Complaint MOTION to Deny Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as Moot ) by Darlene Bailey, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado ; (With attachments) (Jeter, Jo) (Entered: 05/15/2018)

05/16/2018

205 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 202 Opposed MOTION to Amend Amended Complaint MOTION to Deny Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as Moot ) by Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The, Kim Henry, Scott Walton ; (Wagner, Todd) (Entered: 05/16/2018)

05/21/2018

206 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 202 Opposed MOTION to Amend Amended Complaint MOTION to Deny Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as Moot ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins ; [Note: Attorney Robert D Friedman added to party Melanie Holmes(pty:pla).] (Friedman, Robert) (Entered: 05/21/2018)

05/24/2018

207 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion For Leave To File A Second Amended Complaint (Re: 202 Opposed MOTION to Amend Amended Complaint MOTION to Deny Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as Moot ) by Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association ; (Ellis, Isaac) (Entered: 05/24/2018)

05/29/2018

208 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint and to Deny Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as Moot (Re: 202 Opposed MOTION to Amend Amended Complaint MOTION to Deny Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as Moot ) by Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc., Jim D Shofner, Rob Shofner ; (With attachments) (Applegate, Robert) (Entered: 05/29/2018)

06/01/2018

209 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion to File Second Amended Complaint (Re: 202 Opposed MOTION to Amend Amended Complaint MOTION to Deny Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as Moot ) by Terrell S Crosson, Doug Drummond, Dawn Moody, William J Musseman, Jr ; (Lawson, Stefanie) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/04/2018

210 Second REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 202 Opposed MOTION to Amend Amended Complaint MOTION to Deny Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as Moot ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins ; (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 06/04/2018)

09/20/2018

211 OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; finding as moot 175 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 176 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 177 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 178 Motion to

Dismiss; finding as moot 179 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 180 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 181 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 182 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 183 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 184 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 185 Motion to Dismiss; granting 202 Motion to Amend; granting 202 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief; finding as moot 95 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; finding as moot 99 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; finding as moot 169 Motion to Dismiss (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 09/20/2018)

09/21/2018

212 Second AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants (Re: 76 Amended Complaint ) by David Smith, Melanie Holmes, Christopher Choate, Carly Graff, Linda Meachum, Ira Lee Wilkins, Kendallia Killman, Randy Frazier (With attachments) (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 09/21/2018)

09/24/2018

213 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Maurice Glenn Woods, II on behalf of Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association [Note: Attorney Maurice Glenn Woods, II added to party Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association(pty:dft).] (Woods, Maurice) (Entered: 09/24/2018)

09/24/2018

214 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Kelsey Ann Chilcoat on behalf of Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association [Note: Attorney Kelsey Ann Chilcoat added to party Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association(pty:dft).] (Chilcoat, Kelsey) (Entered: 09/24/2018)

09/26/2018 215 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by P D Taylor (With attachments) (Heggy, Rodney) (Entered: 09/26/2018)

09/27/2018 216 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Carri Ann Remillard on behalf of P D Taylor [Note: Attorney Carri Ann Remillard added to party P D Taylor(pty:dft).] (Remillard, Carri) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

10/01/2018

217 NOTICE supplemental authority (Re: 77 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) by Randy Frazier, Carly Graff (With attachments) (Hubbard, Katherine) (Entered: 10/01/2018)

10/01/2018 218 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer (Re: 212 Amended Complaint, ) by Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc., Jim D Shofner, Rob Shofner (Woodard, John) (Entered: 10/01/2018)

10/02/2018 219 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; granting 218 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer (srt, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/02/2018)

10/05/2018 220 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney(s) Emily B. Kosmider by Darlene Bailey, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado (Kosmider, Emily) (Entered: 10/05/2018)

10/05/2018 221 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; terminating attorney Emily Brooks Kosmider ; granting 220 Motion to Withdraw Attorney(s) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 10/05/2018)

10/10/2018

222 MOTION for Attorney(s) Douglas N. Letter to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $50 PHV fee; receipt number 1085-1969321) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins [Note: Attorney Daniel E Smolen added to party Melanie Holmes(pty:pla).] (With attachments) (Smolen, Daniel) (Entered: 10/10/2018)

10/17/2018 223 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - Douglas N. Letter is admitted Pro Hac Vice as counsel for Plaintiffs ; ; granting 222 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 10/17/2018)

10/18/2018 224 RESPONSE (Re: 217 Notice (Other) ) by Darlene Bailey, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado (Wilson, Douglas) (Entered: 10/18/2018)

10/19/2018 225 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Scott Boudinot Wood on behalf of Kim Henry [Note: Attorney Scott Boudinot Wood added to party Kim Henry(pty:dft).] (Wood, Scott) (Entered: 10/19/2018)

10/19/2018

226 MOTION to Dismiss (OFFICIAL CAPACITY) by Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The, Kim Henry, Scott Walton (With attachments) (LeBlanc, Thomas) (Entered: 10/19/2018)

10/19/2018 227 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Kim Henry (Wood, Scott) (Entered: 10/19/2018)

10/19/2018 228 MOTION to Dismiss (INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY) by Scott Walton (LeBlanc, Thomas) (Entered: 10/19/2018)

10/22/2018 229 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney(s) (INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY) by Kim Henry (LeBlanc, Thomas) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/22/2018 230 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Compliant by Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc. (Applegate, Robert) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/22/2018 231 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Compliant by Jim D Shofner, Rob Shofner (Applegate, Robert) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/22/2018 232 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint and Brief in Support by Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association (Ellis, Isaac) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/22/2018 233 MOTION to Dismiss and Brief in Support by Terrell S Crosson, Doug Drummond, Dawn Moody, William J Musseman, Jr (Lawson, Stefanie) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/22/2018

234 MOTION to Dismiss (Official Capacity) by Tony Almaguer, Darren Atha, Dennis Banther, Matt Boley, Mike Booth, Bret Bowling, Chris Bryant, Kevin Clardy, Danny Cryer, Chris Elliott, Norman Fisher, Jeremy Floyd, Todd Gibson, Marty Grisham, Sandy Hadley, R B Hauf, Tony Head, B J Hedgecock, Jesse James, Bryan Jump, Steve Kelley, Larry Lane, Kevin Ledbetter, Roger Levick, Marcia Maxwell, Thomas McClendon, Kevin Mitchell, Harlan Moore, Jerry Niles, Ruben Parker, Jr, Mike Reed, Roger Reeve, Eddy Rice, Jason Ritchie, Darrin Rodgers, Clay Sander, Rob Seale, Rick Silver, Jon Smith, Shannon Smith, Scott Sterling, Eddie Virden, Rick Wallace, Scott Walton, Mike Waters, Jim Weir, Chris West, Bobby Whittington, Jeremie Wilson, Heath Winfrey, Steven Worley (With attachments) (Lafferrandre, Robert) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/22/2018 235 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint by Vic Regalado (Jeter, Jo) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/22/2018 236 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint by Don Newberry (Jeter, Jo) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/22/2018 237 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint by Darlene Bailey (Jeter, Jo) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/22/2018

238 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint by Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Vic Regalado, Don Newberry, Darlene Bailey (Jeter, Jo) Modified on 10/23/2018 to add filers (sac-qc, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/22/2018

239 MOTION to Dismiss (Individual Capacity) by Tony Almaguer, Darren Atha, Dennis Banther, Matt Boley, Mike Booth, Bret Bowling, Chris Bryant, Kevin Clardy, Danny Cryer, Chris Elliott, Norman Fisher, Jeremy Floyd, Todd Gibson, Marty Grisham, Sandy Hadley, R B Hauf, Tony Head, B J Hedgecock, Jesse James, Bryan Jump, Steve Kelley, Larry Lane, Kevin Ledbetter, Roger Levick, Marcia Maxwell, Thomas McClendon, Kevin Mitchell, Harlan Moore, Jerry Niles, Ruben Parker, Jr, Mike Reed, Roger Reeve, Eddy Rice, Jason Ritchie, Darrin Rodgers, Clay Sander, Rob Seale, Rick Silver, Jon Smith, Shannon Smith, Scott Sterling, Eddie Virden, Rick Wallace, Mike Waters, Jim Weir, Chris West, Bobby Whittington, Jeremie Wilson, Heath Winfrey, Steven Worley (Lafferrandre, Robert) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/23/2018 240 NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: not all filers were selected; Correction: added filers (Re: 238 MOTION to

Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ) (sac-qc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/23/2018)

10/24/2018

241 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Barrett Lynn Powers on behalf of Darlene Bailey, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado [Note: Attorney Barrett Lynn Powers added to party Darlene Bailey(pty:dft), Attorney Barrett Lynn Powers added to party Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The(pty:dft), Attorney Barrett Lynn Powers added to party Don Newberry(pty:dft), Attorney Barrett Lynn Powers added to party Vic Regalado(pty:dft).] (Powers, Barrett) (Entered: 10/24/2018)

10/24/2018 242 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; terminating attorney Thomas Adrian LeBlanc and Todd Michael Wagner ; granting 229 Motion to Withdraw Attorney(s) (srt, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/24/2018)

10/25/2018

243 NOTICE of Correction to the County Sheriffs' Official Capacity Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 234) by Tony Almaguer, Darren Atha, Dennis Banther, Matt Boley, Mike Booth, Bret Bowling, Rudy Briggs, Jr, Chris Bryant, Kevin Clardy, Danny Cryer, Chris Elliott, Norman Fisher, Jeremy Floyd, Todd Gibson, Marty Grisham, Sandy Hadley, R B Hauf, Tony Head, B J Hedgecock, Jesse James, Bryan Jump, Steve Kelley, Larry Lane, Kevin Ledbetter, Roger Levick, Marcia Maxwell, Thomas McClendon, Kevin Mitchell, Harlan Moore, Jerry Niles, Ruben Parker, Jr, Mike Reed, Roger Reeve, Eddy Rice, Jason Ritchie, Darrin Rodgers, Clay Sander, Rob Seale, Rick Silver, Jon Smith, Shannon Smith, Scott Sterling, Eddie Virden, Rick Wallace, Mike Waters, Jim Weir, Chris West, Bobby Whittington, Jeremie Wilson, Heath Winfrey, Steven Worley (Hendrickson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/25/2018)

10/29/2018

244 Opposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation and File Consolidated Brief by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 10/29/2018)

10/30/2018

245 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 244 Opposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation and File Consolidated Brief ) by Darlene Bailey, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado ; (Wilson, Douglas) (Entered: 10/30/2018)

11/01/2018

246 MOTION for Attorney(s) Ryan Downer, Marco Lopez, Tara Mikkilineni to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $150 PHV fee; receipt number 1085-1977231) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins [Note: Attorney Katherine Hubbard added to

party Christopher Choate(pty:pla), Attorney Katherine Hubbard added to party Melanie Holmes(pty:pla), Attorney Katherine Hubbard added to party Kendallia Killman(pty:pla), Attorney Katherine Hubbard added to party Linda Meachum(pty:pla), Attorney Katherine Hubbard added to party David Smith(pty:pla).] (With attachments) (Hubbard, Katherine) (Entered: 11/01/2018)

11/01/2018

247 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - Attorney(s) Ryan Downer, Marco Lopez, Tara Mikkilineni are admitted Pro Hac Vice for Plaintiffs ; granting 246 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice (srt, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/01/2018)

11/05/2018

248 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 244 Opposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation and File Consolidated Brief ) by Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc., Jim D Shofner, Rob Shofner ; (Woodard, John) (Entered: 11/05/2018)

11/05/2018

249 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 244 Opposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation and File Consolidated Brief ) by Tony Almaguer, Darren Atha, Dennis Banther, Matt Boley, Mike Booth, Bret Bowling, Rudy Briggs, Jr, Chris Bryant, Kevin Clardy, Danny Cryer, Chris Elliott, Norman Fisher, Jeremy Floyd, Todd Gibson, Marty Grisham, Sandy Hadley, R B Hauf, Tony Head, B J Hedgecock, Jesse James, Bryan Jump, Steve Kelley, Larry Lane, Kevin Ledbetter, Roger Levick, Marcia Maxwell, Thomas McClendon, Kevin Mitchell, Harlan Moore, Jerry Niles, Ruben Parker, Jr, Mike Reed, Roger Reeve, Eddy Rice, Jason Ritchie, Darrin Rodgers, Clay Sander, Rob Seale, Rick Silver, Jon Smith, Shannon Smith, Scott Sterling, Eddie Virden, Rick Wallace, Mike Waters, Jim Weir, Chris West, Bobby Whittington, Jeremie Wilson, Heath Winfrey, Steven Worley ; (Hendrickson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/05/2018)

11/06/2018

250 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Kim Henry, Official Capacity Only; Scott Walton, Individual & Official Capacity) (Re: 244 Opposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation and File Consolidated Brief ) by Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The, Kim Henry, Scott Walton ; (LeBlanc, Thomas) (Entered: 11/06/2018)

11/07/2018

251 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 244 Opposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation and File Consolidated Brief ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins ; (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 11/07/2018)

11/07/2018 252 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney(s) Todd M. Wagner by Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The, Scott Walton

(Wagner, Todd) Modified on 11/7/2018 deleted filer selected by not named in pleading as a filer (sac-qc, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 11/07/2018)

11/07/2018

NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: filer selected but not named in pleading; Correction: deleted Kim Henry as a filer (Re: 252 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney(s) Todd M. Wagner ) (sac-qc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/07/2018)

11/07/2018

253 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 244 Opposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation and File Consolidated Brief ) by Terrell S Crosson, Doug Drummond, Dawn Moody, William J Musseman, Jr ; (Lawson, Stefanie) (Entered: 11/07/2018)

11/08/2018

254 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion to File a Consolidated Brief Opposing Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and to Extend the Page Limit (Re: 244 Opposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation and File Consolidated Brief ) by Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association ; (Ellis, Isaac) (Entered: 11/08/2018)

11/08/2018

255 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 244 Opposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation and File Consolidated Brief ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins ; (Friedman, Robert) (Entered: 11/08/2018)

11/08/2018 256 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 244 Opposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation and File Consolidated Brief ) by Kim Henry ; (Wood, Scott) (Entered: 11/08/2018)

11/09/2018

257 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Reply to Motion Response (Re: 233 MOTION to Dismiss and Brief in Support ) by Terrell S Crosson, Doug Drummond, Dawn Moody, William J Musseman, Jr (Lawson, Stefanie) (Entered: 11/09/2018)

11/09/2018

258 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - Defendant State Judges' Unopposed Motion for Extension to File Reply (Doc. 257) to Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Defendant State Judges' Reply is due 12/21/2018. ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Responses due by 11/20/2018, Replies due by 12/21/2018); granting 257 Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Motion Response (Re: 233 MOTION to Dismiss and Brief in Support, 219 Order, Ruling on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 11/09/2018)

11/09/2018 259 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - Plaintiffs' motion to file a consolidated brief opposing Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 244)

is DENIED. Plaintiff may file Responses that conform with LCvR7.2(c) and (e) to all pending Motions to Dismiss. The Court remains particularly concerned with judicial economy in light of the many pending Motions to Dismiss. Accordingly, the Court urges Plaintiffs to limit their Responses to the precise legal issues addressed in the relevant Motion to Dismiss, and to avoid duplicative briefing. ; denying 244 Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 11/09/2018)

11/14/2018

260 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion (Re: 238 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, 232 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint and Brief in Support, 230 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Compliant, 239 MOTION to Dismiss (Individual Capacity), 237 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, 227 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , 231 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Compliant, 228 MOTION to Dismiss (INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY), 215 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction , 233 MOTION to Dismiss and Brief in Support, 226 MOTION to Dismiss (OFFICIAL CAPACITY), 236 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, 234 MOTION to Dismiss (Official Capacity), 235 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins (Friedman, Robert) (Entered: 11/14/2018)

11/16/2018

261 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation Opposing County Sheriffs' Motions to Dismiss by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 11/16/2018)

11/16/2018

262 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - The Parties' Joint Motion for Extensions of Time (Doc. 260) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file their Response briefs in opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss by November 30, 2018. Defendants shall file their Reply briefs in support of their Motions to Dismiss by December 21, 2018. ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Responses due by 11/30/2018, Replies due by 12/21/2018); granting 260 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion (Re: 237 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, 238 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, 234 MOTION to Dismiss (Official Capacity), 228 MOTION to Dismiss (INDIVIDUAL

CAPACITY), 231 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Compliant, 226 MOTION to Dismiss (OFFICIAL CAPACITY), 235 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, 232 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint and Brief in Support, 227 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , 230 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Compliant, 215 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction , 233 MOTION to Dismiss and Brief in Support, 236 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, 239 MOTION to Dismiss (Individual Capacity) ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 11/16/2018)

11/16/2018

263 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Leave to Exceed the Page Limit for Their Briefs Opposition to the County Sheriffs Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 261) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs briefs in opposition to the County Sheriffs motions to dismiss shall not exceed 40 pages per brief. ; granting 261 Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation (Re: 239 MOTION to Dismiss (Individual Capacity), 234 MOTION to Dismiss (Official Capacity) ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 11/16/2018)

11/19/2018 264 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; terminating attorney Todd Michael Wagner ; granting 252 Motion to Withdraw Attorney(s) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 11/19/2018)

11/30/2018 265 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Douglas N Letter on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Letter, Douglas) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018 266 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Ryan Downer on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Downer, Ryan) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018

267 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion Brief A (Re: 239 MOTION to Dismiss (Individual Capacity) ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins ; (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018

268 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion Brief B (Re: 226 MOTION to Dismiss (OFFICIAL CAPACITY) ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins ; (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018

269 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion Brief C (Re: 227 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda

Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins ; (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018

270 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion Brief D (Re: 228 MOTION to Dismiss (INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY) ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins ; (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018

271 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion Brief E (Re: 230 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Compliant ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins ; (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018

272 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion Brief F (Re: 231 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Compliant ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins ; (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018

273 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion Brief G (Re: 232 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint and Brief in Support ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins ; (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018

274 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion Brief H (Re: 233 MOTION to Dismiss and Brief in Support ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins ; (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018

275 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion Brief I (Re: 234 MOTION to Dismiss (Official Capacity) ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins ; (With attachments) (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018

276 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion Brief J (Re: 235 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins ; (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018 277 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion Brief K (Re: 236 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ) by Ira Lee Wilkins ; (With attachments) (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018

278 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion Brief L (Re: 237 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins ; (With attachments) (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018

279 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion Brief M (Re: 238 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins ; (With attachments) (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

12/03/2018

280 NOTICE of Dismissal, dismissing P.D. Taylor, Sheriff of Oklahoma County, (Re: 212 Amended Complaint, ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 12/03/2018)

12/13/2018

281 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation for Their Reply Briefs in Support of Their Motions to Dismiss by Tony Almaguer, Darren Atha, Dennis Banther, Matt Boley, Mike Booth, Bret Bowling, Rudy Briggs, Jr, Chris Bryant, Kevin Clardy, Danny Cryer, Chris Elliott, Norman Fisher, Jeremy Floyd, Todd Gibson, Marty Grisham, Sandy Hadley, R B Hauf, Tony Head, B J Hedgecock, Jesse James, Bryan Jump, Steve Kelley, Larry Lane, Kevin Ledbetter, Roger Levick, Marcia Maxwell, Thomas McClendon, Kevin Mitchell, Harlan Moore, Jerry Niles, Ruben Parker, Jr, Mike Reed, Roger Reeve, Eddy Rice, Jason Ritchie, Darrin Rodgers, Clay Sander, Rob Seale, Rick Silver, Jon Smith, Shannon Smith, Scott Sterling, Eddie Virden, Rick Wallace, Mike Waters, Jim Weir, Chris West, Bobby Whittington, Jeremie Wilson, Heath Winfrey, Steven Worley (Hendrickson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/13/2018)

12/14/2018

282 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - The County Sheriff Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation (Doc. 281) is GRANTED. The County Sheriff Defendants' Reply Briefs may not exceed 20 pages per brief. ; granting 281 Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation (Re: 239 MOTION to Dismiss (Individual Capacity), 234 MOTION to Dismiss (Official Capacity) ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 12/14/2018)

12/19/2018

283 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 238 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ) by Darlene Bailey, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado ; (Wilson, Douglas) (Entered: 12/19/2018)

12/20/2018

284 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 232 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint and Brief in Support ) by Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association ; (Ellis, Isaac) (Entered: 12/20/2018)

12/20/2018

285 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 233 MOTION to Dismiss and Brief in Support ) by Terrell S Crosson, Doug Drummond, Dawn Moody, William J Musseman, Jr ; (Lawson, Stefanie) (Entered: 12/20/2018)

12/21/2018 286 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 231 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Compliant ) by Jim D Shofner, Rob Shofner ; (Applegate, Robert) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

12/21/2018

287 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 230 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Compliant ) by Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc. ; (Applegate, Robert) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

12/21/2018 288 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 237 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ) by Darlene Bailey ; (Jeter, Jo) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

12/21/2018

289 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 235 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ) by Vic Regalado ; (Jeter, Jo) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

12/21/2018 290 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 236 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ) by Don Newberry ; (Jeter, Jo) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

12/21/2018

291 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 228 MOTION to Dismiss (INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY) ) by Scott Walton ; (LeBlanc, Thomas) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

12/21/2018

292 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 226 MOTION to Dismiss (OFFICIAL CAPACITY) ) by Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The, Kim Henry, Scott Walton ; (LeBlanc, Thomas) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

12/21/2018 293 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 227 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ) by Kim Henry ; (Wood, Scott) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

12/21/2018

294 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 239 MOTION to Dismiss (Individual Capacity) ) by Tony Almaguer, Darren Atha, Dennis Banther, Matt Boley, Mike Booth, Bret Bowling, Rudy Briggs, Jr, Chris Bryant, Kevin Clardy, Danny Cryer, Chris Elliott, Norman

Fisher, Jeremy Floyd, Todd Gibson, Marty Grisham, Sandy Hadley, R B Hauf, Tony Head, B J Hedgecock, Jesse James, Bryan Jump, Steve Kelley, Larry Lane, Kevin Ledbetter, Roger Levick, Marcia Maxwell, Thomas McClendon, Kevin Mitchell, Harlan Moore, Jerry Niles, Ruben Parker, Jr, Mike Reed, Roger Reeve, Eddy Rice, Jason Ritchie, Darrin Rodgers, Clay Sander, Rob Seale, Rick Silver, Jon Smith, Shannon Smith, Scott Sterling, Eddie Virden, Rick Wallace, Mike Waters, Jim Weir, Chris West, Bobby Whittington, Jeremie Wilson, Heath Winfrey, Steven Worley ; (Hendrickson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

12/21/2018

295 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 234 MOTION to Dismiss (Official Capacity) ) by Tony Almaguer, Darren Atha, Dennis Banther, Matt Boley, Mike Booth, Bret Bowling, Rudy Briggs, Jr, Chris Bryant, Kevin Clardy, Danny Cryer, Chris Elliott, Norman Fisher, Jeremy Floyd, Todd Gibson, Marty Grisham, Sandy Hadley, R B Hauf, Tony Head, B J Hedgecock, Jesse James, Bryan Jump, Steve Kelley, Larry Lane, Kevin Ledbetter, Roger Levick, Marcia Maxwell, Thomas McClendon, Kevin Mitchell, Harlan Moore, Jerry Niles, Ruben Parker, Jr, Mike Reed, Roger Reeve, Eddy Rice, Jason Ritchie, Darrin Rodgers, Clay Sander, Rob Seale, Rick Silver, Jon Smith, Shannon Smith, Scott Sterling, Eddie Virden, Rick Wallace, Mike Waters, Jim Weir, Chris West, Bobby Whittington, Jeremie Wilson, Heath Winfrey, Steven Worley ; (Hendrickson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

01/03/2019

296 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney(s) Douglas N. Letter by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 01/03/2019)

01/03/2019

297 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney(s) by Darlene Bailey, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado (Hall, Kimberly) (Entered: 01/03/2019)

01/04/2019

298 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern that Douglas N. Letter is granted leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs ; terminating attorney Douglas N Letter ; granting 296 Motion to Withdraw Attorney(s) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 01/04/2019)

01/04/2019

299 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern that Kim M. Hall is granted leave to withdraw as counsel for Defendants ; terminating attorney Kimberly Majors Hall ; granting 297 Motion to Withdraw Attorney(s) (lmc, Chambers) Modified on 1/4/2019 to correct typographical errror (sacqc, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 01/04/2019)

01/09/2019 300 MOTION for Leave to File Sur Reply In Opposition to Defendants Aberdeen Entreprizes II, Inc.'s and Jim And Rob Shofner's Motions to

Dismiss (Re: 286 Reply to Response to Motion, 287 Reply to Response to Motion ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins (Downer, Ryan) (Entered: 01/09/2019)

01/15/2019

301 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by David Graham Parker on behalf of Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The, Kim Henry, Scott Walton [Note: Attorney David Graham Parker added to party Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The(pty:dft), Attorney David Graham Parker added to party Kim Henry(pty:dft), Attorney David Graham Parker added to party Scott Walton(pty:dft).] (Parker, David) (Entered: 01/15/2019)

01/18/2019

302 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Surreply (Re: 300 MOTION for Leave to File Sur Reply In Opposition to Defendants Aberdeen Entreprizes II, Inc.'s and Jim And Rob Shofner's Motions to Dismiss ) by Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc., Jim D Shofner, Rob Shofner ; (Applegate, Robert) (Entered: 01/18/2019)

02/05/2019

303 NOTICE Attorney's Lien for Fees and Costs by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Donald) (Entered: 02/05/2019)

04/04/2019

304 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Sur Reply (Doc. 300) in Opposition to Defendants Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc.'s and Jim and Rob Shofner's Motions to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiffs may file a sur reply of no more than ten (10) pages within seven (7) days of this order. ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Replies due by 4/11/2019); granting 300 Motion for Leave to File Document(s) (Re: 231 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Compliant, 230 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Compliant ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 04/04/2019)

04/11/2019

305 SURREPLY to Motion (Re: 230 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Compliant, 231 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Compliant ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins ; (Hubbard, Katherine) (Entered: 04/11/2019)

10/11/2019

306 MOTION to Compel for special reports and motions by Ira Lee Wilkins (dlg, Dpty Clk) Modified on 10/15/2019 to correct file date (dlg, Dpty Clk). Modified on 11/5/2019 - WITHDRAWN per 309 (sac, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 10/15/2019)

10/15/2019 307 NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: wrong filed date; Correction: corrected filed date (Re: 306 MOTION to Compel for special reports and motions ) (dlg, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/16/2019)

10/21/2019

***Motion Referral(s) terminated (Re: 306 MOTION to Compel for special reports and motions ) (srt, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/21/2019)

11/04/2019

308 MOTION to Withdraw Document(s) (Re: 306 MOTION to Compel for special reports and motions ) by Ira Lee Wilkins (Smolen, Daniel) Modified on 11/4/2019 to correct even (srt, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 11/04/2019)

11/04/2019

NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: wrong event (Notice (Other)); Correction: corrected event (Motion to Withdraw Document(s)) (Re: 308 MOTION to Withdraw Document(s) ) (srt, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/04/2019)

11/04/2019

309 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - Plaintiff Wilkins' Motion to Withdraw (Doc. 308) Motion to Compel for Special Reports and Motions is GRANTED. ; striking/withdrawing document(s); granting 308 Motion to Withdraw Documents(s) (Re: 306 MOTION to Compel for special reports and motions ) (Documents Terminated: 306 MOTION to Compel for special reports and motions ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 11/04/2019)

11/25/2019

310 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins (With attachments) (Friedman, Robert) (Entered: 11/25/2019)

11/27/2019 311 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney(s) by Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc., Jim D Shofner, Rob Shofner (Applegate, Robert) (Entered: 11/27/2019)

12/03/2019

312 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; terminating attorney Robert Earl Applegate ; granting 311 Motion to Withdraw Attorney(s) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 12/03/2019)

12/16/2019 313 RESPONSE (Re: 310 Notice (Other) ) by Darlene Bailey, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado (Jeter, Jo) (Entered: 12/16/2019)

12/16/2019

314 RESPONSE (Re: 310 Notice (Other) ) by Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The, Kim Henry, Scott Walton (LeBlanc, Thomas) (Entered: 12/16/2019)

12/16/2019 315 RESPONSE (Re: 310 Notice (Other) ) by Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association (Ellis, Isaac) (Entered: 12/16/2019)

12/16/2019

316 RESPONSE (Re: 310 Notice (Other) ) by Tony Almaguer, Darren Atha, Dennis Banther, Matt Boley, Mike Booth, Bret Bowling, Rudy Briggs, Jr, Chris Bryant, Kevin Clardy, Danny Cryer, Chris Elliott, Norman Fisher, Jeremy Floyd, Todd Gibson, Marty Grisham, Sandy Hadley, R B Hauf, Tony Head, B J Hedgecock, Jesse James, Bryan Jump, Steve Kelley, Larry Lane, Kevin Ledbetter, Roger Levick, Marcia Maxwell, Thomas McClendon, Kevin Mitchell, Harlan Moore, Jerry Niles, Ruben Parker, Jr, Mike Reed, Roger Reeve, Eddy Rice, Jason Ritchie, Darrin Rodgers, Clay Sander, Rob Seale, Rick Silver, Jon Smith, Shannon Smith, Scott Sterling, Eddie Virden, Rick Wallace, Mike Waters, Jim Weir, Chris West, Bobby Whittington, Jeremie Wilson, Heath Winfrey, Steven Worley (Hendrickson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/16/2019)

12/18/2019 317 RESPONSE (Re: 310 Notice (Other) ) by Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc., Jim D Shofner, Rob Shofner (Woodard, John) (Entered: 12/18/2019)

04/06/2020

318 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney(s) D. Graham Parker by Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The, Scott Walton (LeBlanc, Thomas) (Entered: 04/06/2020)

04/17/2020 319 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; terminating attorney David Graham Parker ; granting 318 Motion to Withdraw Attorney(s) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 04/17/2020)

05/14/2020

320 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by William Caleb Jones on behalf of Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The, Scott Walton [Note: Attorney William Caleb Jones added to party Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The(pty:dft), Attorney William Caleb Jones added to party Scott Walton(pty:dft).] (Jones, William) (Entered: 05/14/2020)

08/04/2020 321 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney(s) Harry A. Parrish by Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc., Jim D Shofner, Rob Shofner (Parrish, Harry) (Entered: 08/04/2020)

08/05/2020

322 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - Harry A. Parrish is granted leave to withdraw as counsel of record for Defendants Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc., Jim Shofner and Rob Shofner ; terminating attorney Harry Anthony Parrish ; granting 321 Motion to Withdraw Attorney(s) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 08/05/2020)

08/24/2020 323 MOTION for Entry of Scheduling Order and to Open Discovery by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes,

Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins (Friedman, Robert) Modified on 8/25/2020 to change event (sac, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 08/24/2020)

08/25/2020

NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: wrong event selected (Motion for Discovery); Correction: changed event (Motion for Miscellaneous Relief) (Re: 323 MOTION ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/25/2020)

08/26/2020

324 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - The Court finds good cause to lift the stay of discovery. The Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order and to Open Discovery (Doc. 323) is GRANTED. The parties are ordered to submit a Joint Scheduling Order regarding the Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 78) within twenty (20) days of the date of this order. ; lifting the stay; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Miscellaneous Deadline set for 9/15/2020); granting 323 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Re: 203 Minute Order, 78 MOTION for Class Action Certification ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (lmc, Chambers) Modified on 9/14/2020VACATED per 333 (sac, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 08/26/2020)

08/26/2020

325 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - The Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docs. 77, 79) are referred to Magistrate Judge Jayne for Findings and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(B), referring motion(s) to Magistrate Judge Jayne (Re: 149 Minute Order,,,, Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s),,,,,,,, Ruling on Motion for Hearing,,,,,,, 79 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 77 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 08/26/2020)

08/26/2020

326 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Robert Earl Applegate on behalf of Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc. (Applegate, Robert) (Entered: 08/26/2020)

09/02/2020

327 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Michael Shouse on behalf of Darlene Bailey, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado [Note: Attorney Michael Shouse added to party Darlene Bailey(pty:dft), Attorney Michael Shouse added to party Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The(pty:dft), Attorney Michael Shouse added to party Don Newberry(pty:dft), Attorney Michael Shouse added to party Vic Regalado(pty:dft).] (Shouse, Michael) (Entered: 09/02/2020)

09/08/2020

328 MOTION to Reconsider Ruling Opening Discovery (Re: 324 Minute Order,,, Lifting the Stay,,, Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s),,,,,, Ruling on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,, ) by Board of County

Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The, Kim Henry, Scott Walton (LeBlanc, Thomas) (Entered: 09/08/2020)

09/09/2020

329 MOTION to Reconsider (Re: 324 Minute Order,,, Lifting the Stay,,, Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s),,,,,, Ruling on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,, ) by Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc., Jim D Shofner, Rob Shofner (Woodard, John) (Entered: 09/09/2020)

09/09/2020

330 MOTION to Vacate Order/Judgment (Re: 324 Minute Order,,, Lifting the Stay,,, Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s),,,,,, Ruling on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,, ) by Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association (Warzecha, Chris) (Entered: 09/09/2020)

09/11/2020

331 MOTION to Reconsider Minute Order Lifting Stay of Discovery (Re: 324 Minute Order, Lifting the Stay, Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Ruling on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief) by Tony Almaguer, Darren Atha, Dennis Banther, Matt Boley, Mike Booth, Bret Bowling, Rudy Briggs, Jr, Chris Bryant, Kevin Clardy, Danny Cryer, Chris Elliott, Norman Fisher, Jeremy Floyd, Todd Gibson, Marty Grisham, Sandy Hadley, R B Hauf, Tony Head, B J Hedgecock, Jesse James, Bryan Jump, Steve Kelley, Larry Lane, Kevin Ledbetter, Roger Levick, Marcia Maxwell, Thomas McClendon, Kevin Mitchell, Harlan Moore, Jerry Niles, Ruben Parker, Jr, Mike Reed, Roger Reeve, Eddy Rice, Jason Ritchie, Darrin Rodgers, Clay Sander, Rob Seale, Rick Silver, Jon Smith, Shannon Smith, Scott Sterling, Eddie Virden, Rick Wallace, Mike Waters, Jim Weir, Chris West, Bobby Whittington, Jeremie Wilson, Heath Winfrey, Steven Worley (Lafferrandre, Robert) Modified on 9/14/2020 to remove filer selected in error (sac, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

332 MOTION to Reconsider (Re: 324 Minute Order,,, Lifting the Stay,,, Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s),,,,,, Ruling on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,, ) by Darlene Bailey, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado (Jeter, Jo) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

333 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - The Court grants Defendants' Motions to Reconsider (Docs. 328, 329, 331, 332) and Defendant Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association's Motion to Vacate (Doc. 330). The August 26, 2020 Minute Order (Doc. 324) is hereby VACATED. Defendants are to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion to Enter a Scheduling Order and Open Discovery (Doc. 323) on or before 9/18/2020. Plaintiffs' reply is due on or before 9/29/2020. ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Responses due by 9/18/2020, Replies due by 9/29/2020); vacating/setting aside order(s); granting 328 Motion to Reconsider; granting 329 Motion to

Reconsider; granting 330 Motion to Vacate Order/Judgment; granting 331 Motion to Reconsider; granting 332 Motion to Reconsider (Re: 323 MOTION, 324 Minute Order,,, Lifting the Stay,,, Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s),,,,,, Ruling on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,, ) (Documents Terminated: 324 Minute Order,,, Lifting the Stay,,, Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s),,,,,, Ruling on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,, ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (lmc, Chambers) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/14/2020

NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: terminated defendant selected as a filer; Correction: removed terminated defendant as a filer (Lennis Miller) (Re: 331 MOTION to Reconsider Minute Order Lifting Stay of Discovery ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/14/2020)

09/16/2020

334 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jodi F Jayne Named Plaintiffs Carly Graff and Randy Fraziers Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos. 77, 79) is set for telephone conference on September 30, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. This is an oral argument hearing and only the parties involved in the Motion need to be present for the hearing. Counsel for Plaintiff, Robert Friedman, is directed to arrange the conference call and contact the Courtroom Deputy at stephanie_cope@oknd.uscourts.gov and all counsel of the conference number., setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Motion Hearing set for 9/30/2020 at 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Jodi F Jayne) (Re: 77 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 79 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (sdc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/16/2020)

09/18/2020 335 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 323 MOTION ) by Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers, The, Kim Henry, Scott Walton ; (LeBlanc, Thomas) (Entered: 09/18/2020)

09/18/2020 336 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion to Enter a Scheduling Order and Open Discovery (Re: 323 MOTION ) by Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc., Jim D Shofner, Rob Shofner ; (Woodard, John) (Entered: 09/18/2020)

09/18/2020

337 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 323 MOTION ) by Terrell S Crosson, Doug Drummond, Dawn Moody, William J Musseman, Jr ; (Lawson, Stefanie) (Entered: 09/18/2020)

09/18/2020 338 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion to Enter Scheduling Order and Open Discovery (Re: 323 MOTION ) by Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association ; (James, Robert) (Entered: 09/18/2020)

09/18/2020 339 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 323 MOTION ) by Darlene Bailey, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, The, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado ; (Jeter, Jo) (Entered: 09/18/2020)

09/18/2020

340 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion to Plaintiffs' Motion to Enter a Scheduling Order & Open Discovery (Re: 323 MOTION ) by Tony Almaguer, Darren Atha, Dennis Banther, Matt Boley, Mike Booth, Bret Bowling, Rudy Briggs, Jr, Chris Bryant, Kevin Clardy, Danny Cryer, Chris Elliott, Norman Fisher, Jeremy Floyd, Todd Gibson, Marty Grisham, Sandy Hadley, R B Hauf, Tony Head, B J Hedgecock, Jesse James, Bryan Jump, Steve Kelley, Larry Lane, Kevin Ledbetter, Roger Levick, Marcia Maxwell, Thomas McClendon, Kevin Mitchell, Harlan Moore, Jerry Niles, Ruben Parker, Jr, Mike Reed, Roger Reeve, Eddy Rice, Jason Ritchie, Darrin Rodgers, Clay Sander, Rob Seale, Rick Silver, Jon Smith, Shannon Smith, Scott Sterling, Eddie Virden, Rick Wallace, Mike Waters, Jim Weir, Chris West, Bobby Whittington, Jeremie Wilson, Heath Winfrey, Steven Worley ; (Lafferrandre, Robert) (Entered: 09/18/2020)

09/23/2020

341 MOTION FOR THE COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ITS RECORDS IN ANOTHER PROCEEDING AND OF THE OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ACTIVE IN TULSA COUNTY BESIDES THE TULSA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE by Darlene Bailey, Don Newberry, Vic Regalado (Wilson, Douglas) (Entered: 09/23/2020)

09/25/2020

342 NOTICE Partially Withdrawing Preliminary Injunction Motion (Re: 77 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/29/2020

343 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 323 MOTION ) by Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, Carly Graff, Melanie Holmes, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, David Smith, Ira Lee Wilkins ; (Wayne, Seth) (Entered: 09/29/2020)

09/30/2020

344 MINUTES of Proceedings - held before Magistrate Judge Jodi F Jayne: Motion Hearing held on 9/30/2020 ; striking/terminating deadline(s)/Hearing(s); taking motion(s) under advisement; granting 341 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Re: 79 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 77 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) (Court Reporter: C1) (sdc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/30/2020)

11/20/2020 345 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney(s) by Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association (Woods, Maurice) (Entered: 11/20/2020)

12/08/2020 346 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; terminating attorney Kelsey Ann Chilcoat and Maurice Glenn Woods, II ; granting 345 Motion to Withdraw Attorney(s) (srt, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/08/2020)

01/05/2021 347 NOTICE of Change of Address by Robert Dale James by on behalf of Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association (James, Robert) (Entered: 01/05/2021)

01/05/2021 348 NOTICE of Change of Address by Isaac Robertson Ellis by on behalf of Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association (Ellis, Isaac) (Entered: 01/05/2021)

01/05/2021

349 NOTICE of Change of Address by Chris M Warzecha by on behalf of Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association (Warzecha, Chris) (Entered: 01/05/2021)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:
Exempt flag:

02/05/2021 10:31:23

CRClearinghouse Client Code:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

30

Cost:

Not Exempt

Exempt reason:

4:17-cv-00606TCK-JFJ 3.00
Not Exempt

 
 Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 1 of 103

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

(1) IRA LEE WILKINS,

)

)

)

On behalf of themselves and all others

)

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

(1) ABERDEEN ENTERPRIZES II, INC.,)

AN OKLAHOMA CORPORATION )

)

)

And

)

)

(2) THE OKLAHOMA

)

SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION,

)

AN OKLAHOMA NOT FOR

)

PROFIT CORPORATION

)

)

And

)

)

PARTICIPATING COUNTY

)

SHERIFFS OF OKLAHOMA:

)

)

(3) JASON RITCHIE, SHERIFF OF )

ADAIR COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(4) RICK WALLACE, SHERIFF OF

)

ALFALFA COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(5) TONY HEAD, SHERIFF OF

)

ATOKA COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(6) RUBEN PARKER, SHERIFF OF

)

BEAVER COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

Case No. 17-cv-00606-CVE-JFJ (Complaint –Class Action) JURY DEMAND

1

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 2 of 103

)

(7) DEREK MANNING, SHERIFF OF )

BECKHAM COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(8) TONY ALMAGUER, SHERIFF OF )

BLAINE COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(9) JOHNNY CHRISTIAN, SHERIFF OF )

BRYAN COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(10)LENNIS MILLER, SHERIFF OF )

CADDO COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(11)CHRIS WEST, SHERIFF OF

)

CANADIAN COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(12)CHRIS BRYANT, SHERIFF OF )

CARTER COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(13)NORMAN FISHER, SHERIFF OF )

CHEROKEE COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(14)TERRY PARK, SHERIFF OF

)

CHOCTAW COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(15) LEON APPLE, SHERIFF OF

)

CIMARRON COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(16) JOE LESTER, SHERIFF OF

)

CLEVELAND COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(17) BRYAN JUMP, SHERIFF OF

)

COAL COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

(18) KENNY STRADLEY, SHERIFF OF )

2

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 3 of 103

COMANCHE COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(19) KENT SIMPSON, SHERIFF OF )

COTTON COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(20) HEATH WINFREY, SHERIFF OF )

CRAIG COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(21) BRET BOWLING, SHERIFF OF )

CREEK COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(22) KENNETH TIDWELL, SHERIFF OF)

CUSTER COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(23) HARLAN MOORE, SHERIFF OF )

DELAWARE COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(24) CLAY SANDER, SHERIFF OF )

DEWEY COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(25) SHANE BOOTH, SHERIFF OF )

ELLIS COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(26)JERRY NILES, SHERIFF OF

)

GARFIELD COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(27) LARRY RHODES, SHERIFF OF )

GARVIN COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(28) JIM WEIR, SHERIFF OF

)

GRADY COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(29) SCOTT STERLING, SHERIFF OF )

GRANT COUTNY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

3

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 4 of 103

)

(30) DEVIN HUCKABAY, SHERIFF OF )

GREER COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(31) JOE JOHNSON, SHERIFF OF

)

HARMON COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(32) TRA SNIDER, SHERIFF OF

)

HARPER COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(33) TIM TURNER, SHERIFF OF

)

HASKELL COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(34) MARCIA MAXWELL, SHERIFF OF )

HUGHES COUNTY, HER OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(35) ROGER LEVICK, SHERIFF OF )

JACKSON COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(36) JEREMIE WILSON, SHERIFF OF )

JEFFERSON COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(37) JON SMITH, SHERIFF OF

)

JOHNSTON COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(38) STEVE KELLEY, SHERIFF OF )

KAY COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(39) DENNIS BANTHER, SHERIFF OF )

KINGFISHER COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVDIUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(40) JEFF SMITH, SHERIFF OF

)

KIOWA COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

(41) JESSE JAMES, SHERIFF OF

)

4

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 5 of 103

LATIMER COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(42) ROB SEALE, SHERIFF OF

)

LeFLORE COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(43) CHARLES DOUGHERTY, SHERIFF )

OF LINCOLN COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(44) DAMON DEVEREAUX, SHERIFF )

OF LOGAN COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(45) MARTY GRISHAM, SHERIFF OF )

LOVE COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(46) STEVE RANDOLPH, SHERIFF OF )

MAJOR COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(47) DANNY CRYER, SHERIFF OF )

MARSHALL COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(48) MIKE REED, SHERIFF OF

)

MAYES COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(49) DON HEWETT, SHERIFF OF )

McCLAIN COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(50) KEVIN CLARDY, SHERIFF OF )

McCURTAIN COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(51) KEVIN LEDBETTER, SHERIFF OF )

MCINTOSH COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(52) DARRIN RODGERS, SHERIFF OF )

MURRAY COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

5

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 6 of 103

)

(53) ROB FRAZIER, SHERIFF OF

)

MUSKOGEE COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(54) CHARLES HANGER, SHERIFF OF )

NOBLE COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(55) SANDY HADLEY, SHERIFF OF )

NOWATA COUNTY, HER OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(56) STEVEN WORLEY, SHERIFF OF )

OKFUSKEE COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(57) P.D. TAYLOR, SHERIFF OF

)

OKLAHOMA COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(58) EDDY RICE, SHERIFF OF

)

OKMULGEE COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(59) EDDIE VIRDEN, SHERIFF OF )

OSAGE COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(60) JEREMY FLOYD, SHERIFF OF )

OTTAWA COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(61) MIKE WATERS, SHERIFF OF )

PAWNEE COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(62) R.B. HAUF, SHERIFF OF

)

PAYNE COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(63) CHRIS MORRIS, SHERIFF OF )

PITTSBURG COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

(64) JOHN CHRISTIAN, SHERIFF OF )

6

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 7 of 103

PONTOTOC COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(65) MIKE BOOTH, SHERIFF OF

)

POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY, HIS

)

OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY)

)

(66) B.J. HEDGECOCK, SHERIFF OF )

PUSHMATAHA COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(67) DARREN ATHA, SHERIFF OF )

ROGER MILLS COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(68) SCOTT WALTON, SHERIFF OF )

ROGERS COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(69) SHANNON SMITH, SHERIFF OF )

SEMINOLE COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(70) LARRY LANE, SHERIFF OF

)

SEQUOYAH COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(71) WAYNE McKINNEY, SHERIFF OF )

STEPHENS COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(72) MATT BOLEY, SHERIFF OF

)

TEXAS COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(73) BOBBY WHITTINGTON, SHERIFF )

OF TILLMAN COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(74) VIC REGALADO, SHERIFF OF )

TULSA COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(75) CHRIS ELLIOT, SHERIFF OF

)

WAGONER COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

7

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 8 of 103

)

(76) RICK SILVER, SHERIFF OF

)

WASHINGTON COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(77) ROGER REEVE, SHERIFF OF )

WASHITA COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(78) RUDY BRIGGS, JR, SHERIFF OF )

WOODS COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL

)

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

(79) KEVIN MITCHELL, SHERIFF OF )

WOODWARD COUNTY, HIS OFFICIAL )

AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

)

)

)

Defendants

)

Class Action Complaint Introduction
This lawsuit is about constitutional violations and corruption i n t h e collections of fines and costs, imposed on indigent defendants in criminal cases, by Aberdeen Enterprizes (sic) II (hereafter known as “Aberdeen”) through a contract with The Oklahoma Sheriffs’ Association (hereafter known as “Sheriffs’ Association”) as the administrative agent of certain, participating County Sheriffs of Oklahoma, listed above. The Plaintiffs in this case are all people living in poverty, found to be indigent by the Courts of Oklahoma Counties, who were assigned a Public Defender or counsel through the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System at the time of sentencing, who were later issued warrants and/or incarcerated for failure to pay criminal court fines and costs. These plaintiffs are victims of an extortion scheme in which the Defendants have conspired to extract as much money as possible
8

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 9 of 103
from indigent people through a pattern of illegal and unconscionable behavior. The crux of this scheme is a conspiracy by a private company, Aberdeen, to collect
the court debts in criminal cases b y extorting1 money from these impoverished individuals, through a cycle of intimidation, warrants and incarceration. This scheme is carried out with the aid of the Sheriffs’ Association, which contracts with Aberdeen for this egregious practice, and who has received millions of dollars in kickbacks from funds collected.
These plaintiffs have no ability to pay court costs. When they fall behind on payments, the amount they owe is increased, without notice, by 30% and sent to Aberdeen, who collects the 30% for itself and the Sheriffs’ Association. Aberdeen acts as a debt collector for the Sheriffs’ Association and the Counties. Aberdeen’s intimidation, through repeated and continuous threats to arrest and imprison i n d i g e n t a n d o f t e n d i s a b l e d individuals, is enforced by the Counties, who also assess and collect its own additional and substantial fees and surcharges. Counties have ceded the proper authority of the judges to Aberdeen because it is Aberdeen who requests that warrants be issued and recalled, with no hearing to determine ability to pay, as required by law.
As a result of this extortion enterprise, the Plaintiffs and tens of thousands of others similarly situated2 have lost housing, lost jobs, lost cars, undergone humiliating physical intrusions on their bodies in jails, suffered medical injuries, sacrificed food and clothing for their vulnerable children, and/or diverted their low-income physical and mental disability checks—all in order to pay a private company “fines, costs, and fees” incurred in criminal
1 Extortion is defined as “the obtaining of property from another with his consent, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right.” 21 Oklahoma Statute §1481 2 It is estimated that approximately 75% of all indigent defendants sentenced by the court receive a Failure to Pay warrant issued. In Tulsa County alone, 80% of all felonies are filed are filed against indigent people.
9

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 10 of 103
court which have already declared them to be indigent. They have languished year after year on recurring terms of debt collection under constant threats to their physical and emotional well-being, and they have been repeatedly jailed because of their poverty. This cycle of ever-increasing debts, threats, and imprisonment has left the Plaintiffs and thousands of people like them in Cities and Counties across Oklahoma trapped in a culture of fear and panic.3
This civil rights action is brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Oklahoma law to stop the Defendants from continuing to operate a racketeering enterprise that is extorting money from some of the most impoverished people in Oklahoma Counties under constant threat of jail and to prevent the Defendants from misusing the fines and costs imposed on the poor as a process for profit.
The treatment of Ira Lee Wilkins and each of the other Plaintiff class members, reveals systemic illegality perpetrated as a matter of ongoing design, policy, and practice by Aberdeen Enterprises and their conspirators, the Sherffs’ Associaton, in each of the named Sheriffs of the counties in Oklahoma. By and through their attorneys and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs seek in this civil rights action the vindication of their fundamental rights, compensation for the violations that they suffered, punitive damages to punish the Defendants and to deter similar misconduct in the future, and injunctive relief assuring that their rights will not be violated again. Debtors prisons have no place in our society.
3 “[T]he percentage of families living in poverty in Oklahoma increased in 2016, even as the national poverty rate declined to its lowest point since 2008. In 2016, almost one out of six Oklahomans (16.3 percent) were making less than the poverty line ($24,230 a year for a family of four) before taxes. About 9,500 more Oklahomans had incomes below the poverty line in 2016 than in 2015. Oklahoma’s poverty rate increased even as the poverty rate for the United States as a whole fell to 14.0 percent. These national improvements widened the gap between Oklahoma and the U.S. as a whole. Oklahoma’s poverty rate in 2016 was 9th highest out of all 50 states.” Perry, Gene. “New Census Data shows Oklahoma fell further behind the U.S. on poverty and uninsured rate in 2016,” Healthcare, Poverty & Opportunity, Oklahoma Policy Institute, September 14, 2017.
10

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 11 of 103
Nature of the Action4 1. Aberdeen Enterprizes II and The Oklahoma Sheriffs Association entered into a contractual agreement, see Exhibit 1 (“The Agreement”), to hand control of the collection of court fines and costs from the County Courts Cost Administrator to the private, for-profit company. Pursuant to the specific terms of the Agreement, Aberdeen must earn its profit solely and directly from the people that it collects from, by operating a “user funded” model in which plaintiffs are ordered to pay, under threat of arrest and revocation of their probation, a variety of fees and surcharges to Aberdeen, as well as their court costs. According to the agreement, the Sherriff’s Association will pay Aberdeen nothing, and Aberdeen will make no profit unless it is able to get money from the indigent people from whom it extorts.5 2. This agreement creates an unethical and illegal alliance: a supposedly neutral collections agency who a) has a direct financial stake in every decision and outcome in any indigent individual’s criminal case, and b) can request for warrants to be issued and recalled without being held accountable for an individual’s ability to pay, hardship incurred, or suffering caused by limited resources going to Aberdeen rather than to the family of those affected by this abuse. This specific contractual arrangement violates the basic notions of due process, neutrality, and fairness as those concepts have been understood throughout American legal history. 3. When defendants fail to pay, the case is sent to Aberdeen, and the amount the impoverished person owes is increased by 30%. 4. At sentencing, plaintiffs are not given notice about this 30% increase in fines and costs that might be owed if they cannot pay.
4 Plaintiffs make the allegations in this Complaint based on personal knowledge as to matter in which they have had personal involvement and on information and belief as to all other matters. 5 “Agreement for Collection” between Oklahoma Sheriffs’ Association and Aberdeen Enterprizes II, dated January 1, 2010 and most recently renewed December 16, 2016. At p. 3
11

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 12 of 103
5. Indigent plaintiffs are repeatedly threatened by Aberdeen and told that failure to pay them will result in a warrant (a warrant for which they will be charged an additional $80).
6. The Plaintiffs were not given notice that if a warrant is issued for failure to pay, the Plaintiffs’ driver’s licenses will be suspended.
7. The indigent plaintiffs, rather than be assigned community service hours or some other non-pecuniary punishment, are required to pay hundreds and often thousands of dollars in fines and costs as a part of their sentence. If they fail to pay, a warrant is issued, the total debt is increased by 30%, and the case is sent to Aberdeen, who contacts the indigent person and tells them they can have the warrant recalled in exchange for money up front and a payment schedule – the amount which is determined by the company, not the courts. This schedule is enforced through threats, warrants, and incarceration.
8. Aberdeen is given the discretion to pay itself first from the 30% of the money increased on the debt. The amount originally owed is set by the court at sentencing, and is collected by Aberdeen until the entire debt, including the increase is paid. For example, if a plaintiff is assessed $1000 in fines and costs, Aberdeen threatens him or her with warrants and jail until $1300 is collected from the impoverished person. Therefore, Aberdeen routinely extorts money through the arrest and incarceration of indigent Oklahoma residents who have already paid enough money to cover the entirety of their original court debts.
9. These proceedings are initiated and conducted without any inquiry into a probationer’s ability to pay—even though the clear majority of Aberdeen’s probationers are indigent—and they result in the imposition of further costs, fees, and surcharges, thus
12

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 13 of 103
trapping probationers in a cycle of debts, arrest, jail, and more debts. 10. In addition to the 30% markup in costs owed by indigent named plaintiffs, and
in addition to the $80 “warrant fee,” the contractual arrangement provides that, “Aberdeen may offer to a debtor of a Warrant the opportunity to pay his/her Debt by electronic means by check or credit card, when receiving payments. The charges associated with the convenience of paying by electronic means is a convenience that, if the debtor uses that procedure, the charge for such processing shall be chargeable to the debtor with notice, and shall be in compliance with applicable law.”6 Therefore, the poor pay for a 30% mark up on the actual debt imposed, $80 for a warrant to be issued when they cannot pay, and then they pay a “convenience fee” for actually paying Aberdeen in a manner that is convenient to both the payer and Aberdeen. When the plaintiffs simply cannot pay, Aberdeen tells them warrants will be issued.
11. Aberdeen and the Sheriffs’ Association have conspired to make good on these threats by jailing probationers who do not pay in order to create an environment of desperation that has made each of them millions of dollars from this illegal scheme.
12. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, compensatory, and punitive relief for themselves and all others similarly situated.
Jurisdiction and Venue
13. This is a civil rights action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (RICO), and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq., and the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law causes of action asserted in this Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the state law claims form part of the same
6 “Agreement,” at 4
13

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 14 of 103
case or controversy as the federal law claims. 14. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
Parties 15. Plaintiff Ira Wilkins is an indigent resident of Tulsa, currently in the custody of the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Mr. Wilkins was represented by a Public Defender when he plead in Tulsa County District County on April 6, 2015. A Bench warrant for Failure to Pay was issued on March 23, 2016 and sent to Aberdeen for collections. From June 6, 2016 to June 17, 2016, he was in custody of Tulsa County Jail and was assigned a Public Defender. Currently, he is incarcerated in the Department of Corrections. Aberdeen has requested that a warrant be issued, and a warrant was issued, out of Wagner County, Oklahoma. He has been cleared for release if were not for the warrant for failure to pay. Counsel has recordings between the family of Mr. Wilkins and Aberdeen. They explain he is in custody and has zero income. Aberdeen explicitly states that there is no recourse for showing he is unable to pay. 16. Defendant Aberdeen Enterprizes II is an Oklahoma corporation registered to do business in Oklahoma. According to their own materials, “°What does Aberdeen do? We collect unpaid court costs and fines for the counties and municipalities in Oklahoma °What is the most important thing we do? We request the recall of failure to pay warrants”7 Aberdeen sends letters and makes numerous phone calls to plaintiffs threatening them with warrants if they fail to make payments. Aberdeen collects over a million dollars a month from people who are destitute and face the illegal and unconscionable choice of going to jail or going without basic necessities for themselves
7 Exhibit 2. Aberdeen Enterprizes, “Two Things You Need to Know!”
14

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 15 of 103
and their families. 17. Defendants 1-77 are the Sheriffs who comprise the Sherriff’s Association, who
contract with Aberdeen to extort money from the poor. In 2015 alone, the Sherriff’s Association made over $829,075 from its contract with Aberdeen.8
• The end of year assets from 2009, before they received the kickbacks from the extortion scheme, was $52,755. The end of year assets from 2015, after 5 years of collection, was $2,717,449 for this “non-profit.”
• During the same time period, “Advertising and promotion” has increased from $189 to $91,292. Travel expenses have increased from $1,129 to $11,745. “Conferences” have increased from $34,070 to $103,720. “Public Relations” has increased from $0 to $36,585 (in addition to the enormous increase advertising).
18. The Sheriffs’ Association is also a lobbying organization. 19. The Sheriffs are responsible for operating the County jails, so they receive money for
jailing inmates when the indigent cannot pay and warrants are issued. In nearly every county in Oklahoma, people who are living in poverty have to pay the jail for the “privilege” of being forced to stay in jail for being too poor to bond out. These fees are added to the impoverished person’s fines and costs, adding to Aberdeen and the Sheriffs’ Associations profits. In addition, some of the costs that every defendant must pay goes to the Sheriffs - just not to the Sheriffs Association. The “Sheriff’s Service Fee on Arrests” is $5 for every count changed. The “Sheriff’s Service Fee for Court House Security” is $10 for every count charged. This is per count, not per defendant.
8 IRS 990 doc
15

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 16 of 103
Factual Background The Debt Collection Scheme in Oklahoma
20. The treatment of the Plaintiffs was caused by and is representative of the policies and practices employed by the Sheriffs’ Association and Aberdeen to collect debts from the fines, costs, fees, and surcharges on criminal cases across the state of Oklahoma.
21. The experiences of the named Plaintiffs have been corroborated through written policy documents and interviews with people who have been subjected to Aberdeen’s threats and extortion scheme. Many of the current and former probationers break down crying when they recount the basic necessities of life that they and their families have had to forego under threat of being arrested for not being able to pay Aberdeen what they demanded. When they are jailed for lack of payment at the request of Aberdeen they are forced to endure deplorable conditions and physical and verbal abuse at the County jails. The Agreement for Collection Between the Sheriffs’ Association and Aberdeen
22. The Agreement for Collection is “by and between The Oklahoma Sheriffs’ Association (“Association”), in its capacity as administrative agent of certain, participating County Sheriffs of Oklahoma9 (the “County Sheriffs”), and Aberdeen Enterprises II, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation (“Aberdeen”) for the collection of fines, penalties and assessments of certain “Warrants”…issued by the County Sheriffs in the State of Oklahoma.”10
23. The Agreement gives Aberdeen “in effect” with the Administrative Director of the Courts, “an Agreement Regarding Use of the Oklahoma Court Information System of Private Collections Vendor (OCIS Agreement,) for access to certain district court case
9 Defendants 1-77 10 Agreement, at 1
16

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 17 of 103

management and accounting functions on OCIS.” This gives Aberdeen access to certain district court case management and accounting functions on OCIS.”11

24. The Agreement ostensibly limits Aberdeen’s conduct, and, at the same time,

links the contract to the County Clerks, requiring that Aberdeen shall “use its best efforts of

collect any Debts associated with any Warrants referred to Aberdeen hereunder solely utilizing

means which are legal, necessary and proper. Aberdeen shall not harass or exert undue

pressure on delinquent debtors or employ any procedure that would cast discredit upon the

Association, the County Clerks(s), or otherwise subject the Association, the County Sheriff(s)

and/or such Court Clerk(s) to public disapproval; and (ii) comply with all applicable federal,

state, and local laws and regulation with regard to collection practices and procedures.”

A. The Sherriff’s Association must have known Aberdeen had no intention of

limiting their collection activities to those which are “legal, necessary and

proper” because using warrants and jail to enforce debt collections is illegal,

and Aberdeen’s own promotional materials state they will take the funds

that people on social security receive, which is illegal. Furthermore,

Aberdeen has no capability to determine if the warrant is issued because of a

refusal to pay or an inability to pay, which is also illegal.

B. Oklahoma statutes provide instructions for those who cannot or will not pay

fines and costs. “…. if the defendant shall refuse to pay the fine, fees or

costs, the payment of such fees and costs, in addition to the payment of the

fine assessed, shall be enforced by imprisonment until the same shall be

satisfied at a rate of Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) per day of such fees and

11 Id., at 3

costs, or fine, or both, or shall be satisfied at a rate of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) 17

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 18 of 103
per day of such fees and costs, or fine, or both, should the defendant perform useful labor. If the defendant is without means to pay the fine, fees or costs, the total amount owed shall be entered upon the judgment docket and thereupon the same remedies shall be available for the enforcement of said judgment as are available to any other judgment creditor.12
C. In essence, this statute allows a judge to issue a bench warrant for Failure to Appear at an asset hearing after the debtor has been personally served. This process outlined by statute differs in important ways from the manner in which warrants are issued for Failure to Pay. First, there is personal service for the defendant to appear. Even if we assume that personal service occurs at the Rule 8 Hearing during sentencing when a judge orders the defendant to report to the Cost Administrator, warrants have been issued long after the defendants appear at Cost Administration. That is, for criminal defendants, warrants were issued Failure to Pay, but for civil debtors, the warrants were issued for Failure to Appear.13 We are unaware of any statue which allows civil remedy, as required by 28 O.S. §101, “available for the enforcement of said judgment as are available to any other judgment creditor,” that includes repeated incarceration for lack of payment.
25. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Rules also provide for the circumstances under which defendants might be incarcerated for Failure to Pay. Rule 8.2 states
12 Title 28 O.S. §101. 13 See “BENCH WARRANT ISSUED FAILED TO PAY BY ORDER OF THE HONORABLE COST. ADMIN. JUDGE (GENERAL),” attached.
18

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 19 of 103
that “[i]f the defendant, by judicial finding, is financially able but refuses or neglects to pay the fine and/or costs in accordance with the court order, he/she may be immediately confined. See Section 983(A) of Title 22.”
26. There has been no proper hearing by our district court judges before the warrant is issued to determine if the failure to pay is the result of unwillingness or inability; furthermore, even after incarceration, most defendants do not see a judge to make a determination. They are simply released if they come up with the cash bond or are held and then released to Cost Administration or Aberdeen if they cannot make a cash bond. The statutes and court rules assume that the defendants’ financial situation is taken into account, when in practice, the court doesn’t hear the defendants’ financial situation even after they have been placed into custody.
27. The Agreement states that Aberdeen may charge a convenience fee if the plaintiff pays by electronic check or credit card. This means that in addition to the 30% mark up over what fines and costs are owed as part of the case, there is an additional cost for the manner in which it is paid.14
28. Funds extorted by Aberdeen are dispersed to the respective Counties on the 15th day of the month. Further dispersements are given to the Court Clerk of the County that has issued a Warrant. That Court Clerk will then pay Aberdeen “30% of the original fines before the administrative fees were added or 23.0769% of the total monies received or 20% of the original fines before the administrative fees were added, or 16%.67 whichever is less as determined by the assignment date of the case for collection.”15
29. Aberdeen also distributes an unknown percentage back to the Sheriff’s
14 Agreement, at 4 15 Id.
19

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 20 of 103
Association. This percentage has been redacted from the contract, but in 2015 alone, the “Warrant Collection Program” gave the Sheriffs’ Association $829,075. That is 67.8% of their total funds for the year. That money bulk of the money from the poor was spent on “Compensation of current officers, directors, trustees, and key employees” ($70,354)16, “Other salaries and wages” ($111,100), “Advertising and promotion” ($91,292), “Office Expenses” ($63,796), “Public Relations” ($36,585) and “Conferences, conventions, and meetings” ($103,720)17. The balance of the non-profit as of 2015 was $2,717,449.18 The statutory provision which makes this possible states that “The administrative cost reflected in subsection A of this section, when collected, shall be distributed to the association administering the provisions of the contract, a portion of which may be used to compensate the contractor.” However, it’s not clear that the Sheriff’s Association has any actual expenses associated with the collection of these costs. Certainly, there is nothing on the 990 IRS Form which indicates expenses for collection that would approach what they are taking in.
30. After Aberdeen collects $1,000,000, in gross revenue, then a new distribution scheme goes into effect with the Sheriffs’ Association getting an unknown (redacted) percentage of the 30% of revenue Aberdeen adds to the cost to the poor, and Aberdeen retains the balance as its fee for collection of the accounts.19
31. The distribution of partial payments by the poor on pay plans with Aberdeen are divided with 76.9231% to the Court Clerk’s offices and “23.0769% of the payment or 16.67% whichever is less as determined by the assignment date of the case for collection to Aberdeen
16 This is the salary of Ray McNair, Executive Director of the Sheriff’s Association. 17 The Sheriffs’ Association also claims it made $85,820 from “Conferences and Seminars” during the same year. 18 Oklahoma Sheriffs’ Association IRS Form 990 (2015) 19 Agreement, at 5-6
20

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 21 of 103
until the full amount is paid.”20 32. Aberdeen shall cease collection of any debts upon the filing of this lawsuit.
A. “Aberdeen shall not represent Association, any County Sheriff’s office and/or any Court Clerk’s office in any matter other than the collection of an account referred hereunder. If and when an account referred to Aberdeen by the Association, a County Sheriff and/or Court Clerk hereunder become involved in litigation, Aberdeen shall immediately suspend collection activity and/or return any account at no charge, upon the request of Association, such County Sheriff’s office, and/or Court Clerk’s office. In no event shall Aberdeen seek to collect on any account which becomes involved in litigation including without limitation, bankruptcy.21
B. Because this lawsuit includes all Sheriffs in Sheriff’s Association, all collection must immediately cease and/or Aberdeen must return any account at not charge, under the terms of the contract.
33. The Sheriff’s Association turned over private information on the plaintiffs to Aberdeen: “Association will provide to Aberdeen any debtor information that would be available to Association for purposes of collecting the warrant.”22 34. The Agreement requires that Aberdeen hold the Sheriff’s Association harmless:
• “It is hereby acknowledged and agreed by the Parties that Association, its Board members, officers, County Sheriffs and Court Clerks shall have no liability for any acts or omissions by Aberdeen, its officers, agents and/or employees, connection with its performance or failure to perform its duties and obligations under this Agreement. Rather, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, Aberdeen shall indemnify, defend, and forever hold
20 Id. At 6 21 Id. At 7 22 Id. At 7-8
21

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 22 of 103
harmless Association, its Board members, officers and directors, the County Sheriffs, the State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma District Court, the Administrative Office of the Courts and their officials, agents and employees from and against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) (collectively “Claims”) arising out of any breach of any of Aberdeen’s warranties, representations and duties and/or obligations pursuant to this Agreement including, without limitation, any acts or omissions on the part of Aberdeen and/or any officer(s), agent(s), and/or employees(s) of Aberdeen in connection with its performance under the terms of this Agreement. Upon receipt by Aberdeen of written notice of any claim for which such indemnity applies, Aberdeen shall immediately undertake the defense of any such claim or action and permit Association to participate, in Association’s sole discretion.”23
The Defendants’ Contract and the “User Funded Model”
35. Aberdeen and the Sheriffs’ Association, with the knowledge of the Counties,
agreed to enter into an arrangement in which the parties would operate an “offender-funded”
or “user-funded” model in which all its revenues would be extracted from the people that it
supervised. The Sheriffs’ Association agreed to enter into the arrangement implementing this
model because Aberdeen promised them that its methods would not only produce a profit
for the Sheriffs’ Association but would also result in coercing probationers to pay a larger
amount of the County’s court debts. The two parties entered into the Contract that is still in
effect. See Exhibit 1.
36. This Contract removes discretion from the judge. N o mechanism is in place
for the judge to review the ability of the plaintiff to pay, as required by the law. Aberdeen is
able to request that a warrant be issued or recalled for Failure to Pay, and it is Aberdeen who
has had contact with the impoverish plaintiff. The judge issuing the warrant has forfeited his or
her role to a private company, and the company collects money that is used to pay the judge
23 Id. At 9
22

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 23 of 103
and the judge’s retirement. 37. In sum, he Contract unlawfully delegates to Aberdeen employees critical decisions in the collection of fines and costs, including who has the ability to pay, how to pay, when to pay, and how much to pay. The contract unlawfully increases what criminal defendants owe by 30%, it kickbacks money to the Sheriffs’ Association, and it undermines the proper authority of the courts to the courts’ financial profit. The contract does all of the above at the expense of the people with the least power, who can least afford it, and moves money to officials in power, who already live well above the poverty level.
How People Are Assigned Aberdeen – Tulsa County Example24 38. The methods of ending up on Aberdeen’s collection list do not differ significantly from
county to county. Tulsa County is used as an example for brevity. 39. After people have been incarcerated for 6 days without bonding out of jail, they are given
a Pauper’s Affidavit by an official with the Sheriff’s office. Then, the judge makes a finding of indigency, and poor defendants are assigned a public defender or other appointed counsel.25 Approximately 2-3 weeks later, if charged with a misdemeanor, or one month later, if they are charged with a felony, plaintiffs get an opportunity to plea – often to probation and the fastest way out of jail for the poor.
40. Those who plead are given a Rule 8 Form to sign which includes fines and fees. They
24 In April 2017, Tulsa County Court change part of the manner in which is collected fines and costs by creating a “Cost Docket.” After years of holding indigent people in custody for 10 days for no other reason than failure to pay with no hearing, no lawyer, and no reduction in what defendants owe, Tulsa now holds people jails people for 1 day and then gives them a court date through an employee of the sheriff at the jail. No restitution was given to those who had already been harmed. No changes were made so that indigent people could receive community service hours or some other alternative to costs. None of the 20,000 outstanding warrants issued illegally were recalled. None of the issues addressed in this lawsuit were cured by Tulsa County with the Cost Docket. 25 In counties other than Tulsa and Oklahoma, who have a public defender system, counsel from the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System is appointed, and defendants are charged for their services, the costs of which are added to the fines and costs eventually collected by Aberdeen.
23

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 24 of 103
will have been in custody that entire time between arrest and sentencing – often losing jobs, housing, and any meager possessions they may have had.
41. The fines are assessed by the judged. But the “costs” associated with each charge are unknown to the judge, the plaintiff, and the public defender. The judge makes a “finding” that the plaintiffs have the ability to pay despite never asking the plaintiffs whether they are able to pay, if they are on social security or other public assistance, whether they have dependents or pay child support, or in some other way would suffer financial hardships. These costs are often over $200 per count.
42. Judges are given other options on the Rule 8 Form: The Rule 8 Form gives the Court the ability to choose a) to have found the defendant has the ability to pay and that the defendant agrees to pay by installment and ordered to report immediately to the Cost Administrator;26 b) find that they are not able to pay and ordered to perform community service hours in lieu of the fines and costs, or,27 c) find that the defendant cannot pay and suspend the fines and costs.28 Any option other than a finding of “able to pay” is essentially a fiction. As explained, infra, an honest, true finding of ability to pay is what is required under the Equal Protection clause of the Oklahoma and United States Constitutions.
43. When people are not able to pay29 a warrant is issued. No hearing is held to determine if the person has the ability to pay but refuses, or simply does not have the means to pay. In fact, even when it is blatantly obvious that people are destitute, debt is referred to
26 Such an order is impossible for the defendant to follow because nearly all indigent defendants are in custody and will not be released until long after the courthouse is closed. 27 It is estimated by Public Defenders that fewer than 1% of indigent defendants are given work hours instead of fines and costs. 28 Suspension of fines and costs is rarer than work hours in lieu of fines and costs. 29 Data for 2007 suggests that 74% of Public Defender clients were issued a warrant for failure to pay
24

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 25 of 103
Aberdeen and the debtors are imprisoned. A. For example, in a Tulsa County case styled as CF-16-52, the plaintiff was charged with Larceny from a Retailer and Trespassing. His total bond was $1500, so he was unable to provide $150 to a bondsman. He was arrested New Years Eve 2016, and spent 8 days in jail before filling out a Pauper’s Affidavit. According to his Pauper’s Affidavit, he is on social security disability, has a total income of $750 per month, and owns no property. The plaintiff was appointed a public defender on January 7, 2017. January 28, 2016, he pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of two misdemeanors, and was assessed $425 in fines and fees on the Rule 8 form. He was also assessed $385 in hidden costs that include, among others, two charges for $83 each on “court costs on misdemeanor,” two charges of $15 each for “DA Council Prosecution Assessment for Misdemeanor,” two charges of $10 each for “Sheriff’s Service Fee for Court House Security,” two charges of $5 each for “Sheriff’s Service fee on Arrests,” and two charges of $7 each for “Court Clerk Administrative Fee on Collections.” B. On May 31, 2016, a warrant was issued for Failure to Pay, the case was sent to Aberdeen for collections, and a cash bond was set for $897 that he would have to pay in order to be released30. This is more money than he makes in an entire month. On June 7, 2016, the plaintiff was in custody for Failure to Pay. He never saw a judge or was appointed counsel. The minute reads that his “Court Cost Hearing Date” would be set for June 16, 2016. “Prior to the court cost hearing the defendant may at any time pay a total cash payment of
30 The plaintiff had other cases in which he was unable to pay the fines and costs.
25

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 26 of 103
($500.00), be released and order to report immediately to cost administration for information pertaining to Aberdeen Enterprises or call Aberdeen to set up payment arrangements on the remaining balance. **2nd Aberdeen**”31 C. Plaintiff was given a letter to sign, not by the court or an attorney, but by a sheriff’s officer at the jail acknowledging his “debt” to Aberdeen.32 On the line for “address” this plaintiff wrote “415 W. Archer, Tulsa, OK.” That address is the Day Center, one of the best known homeless shelters in Tulsa. On this one occasion, for this one plaintiff, a man spent 10 days in jail33, costing tax payers approximately $600 to incarcerate him, because he could not afford $500 cash to give to Aberdeen. He was finally released on June 16, 2017. Aberdeen continues to try to collect his debt. 44. The plaintiff in the example above was not an isolated case. According the Vera Report, a study of the calendar year 2016 inmate population in the Tulsa County Jail, 1,163 people were booked into the jail for the top charge of Failure to Pay fines and costs. The average length of stay was 5 days. At $60 per day, Tulsans paid approximately $348,900 to incarcerate the poor for non-payment of fines in 2016 alone. At 1,163 persons booked into jail, Failure to Pay was the fourth top charge in admissions in 2016, after Possession of Controlled Drug (1,326 persons booked), Public Intoxication (1,267 persons booked), DUI First Offense (1,262 persons booked). The fifth top charge for admissions in 2016 was first offense Domestic Assault and Battery with 655 persons booked.34 Currently,
31 Emphasis in original. 32 From the form letter: “You will be released today and you are to call Aberdeen Enterprises (sic) II at 918.794.0810 or report to their office at 4143 e. 31st. Street, Tulsa, OK 74135 within 48 hours upon release. If you fail to call or report to Aberdeen Enterprises II, a bench warrant will be issued for your arrest. A warrant fee of $80 will be added to each case.” 33 Having previously spent 28 days in jail because he could not afford to bond out before plea. 34 “Report to Tulsa County Stakeholders on Jail Reduction Strategies,” Vera Center on Sentencing + Corrections.
26

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 27 of 103
there are over 20,000 active warrants for Failure to Pay just in Tulsa County. 45. In counties other than Tulsa and Oklahoma, where impoverished clients are assigned
attorneys from the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System, 67% of cases filed are against indigent people.35 46. In every county, warrants are issued for Failure to Pay without a hearing to determine ability to pay, and the debt increased by 30% is given over to Aberdeen. Plaintiffs could pay the Cost Administrator directly, even after the debt is sent to Aberdeen, but Aberdeen conspires to mislead the Plaintiffs. According to their own materials, “If the defendant contacts the court clerk’s office, they can be easily redirected to our 1-800 number so a case manager can handle any of the defendant’s needs…”36 In guidelines for their employees collecting debts, Aberdeen writes, “You are to NEVER refer any defendant to call the court clerks.”37 47. Aberdeen states in its promotional materials that they make no exception for plaintiffs who are so indigent that they receive social security disability or other forms of public assistance. “Typically, we will put persons on disability or SSI on a minimum payment schedule of approximately $50 per month.”38 A single person receives $735 per month in disability. That is $8820 per year, or 27% below the federal poverty level standard. Collection by threat 48. Aberdeen relies on warrants and threats of warrants to collect debt from the poor. According to Aberdeen’s own training materials, as discussed supra, Aberdeen considers the most important thing they do is not the collection of money owed to the
August 2017 35 OIDS 2016 Annual Report. 36 Exhibit 3, “Collection Process” Aberdeen Enterprizes 37 Exhibit 4, “General Collection Rules/Guidelines for working cases” Aberdeen Enterprizes Emphasis in original. 38 Exhibit 5, “Collection Process” Aberdeen Enterprizes
27

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 28 of 103
court, but to “request the recall of failure to pay warrants.” “°What does Aberdeen do? We collect unpaid court costs and fines for the counties and municipalities in Oklahoma °What is the most important thing we do? We request the recall of failure to pay warrants”39 49. Aberdeen claims the County and Sheriffs’ Association can expect “full collection after locating and contacting a defendant in: 60 days for cases of $400 or less; 120 days for cases of $401-800; and cases of $801 + being resolved based on the ability of the defendant to pay over time.”40 50. Aberdeen’s policy is to “Establish a 40% first payment to recall the warrant on cases where the balance is over $500, followed by a reasonable monthly payments until the debt is resolved.” On a plea for a misdemeanor Driving Under the Influence charge, fines and costs typically are approximately $1300 for indigent plaintiffs. Adding the 30% mark up for being with Aberdeen, the plaintiff owes $1690. Therefore, Aberdeen demands $664 up front from people in poverty in order to ask for the warrant to be recalled. 51. Aberdeen contacts plaintiffs by phone and letter. Aberdeen’s first letters to plaintiffs ends with “Please contact us to make arrangements and avoid the service of any bench warrant”41 Aberdeen’s second letter to plaintiffs states, “If you contact us, I will discuss options with you that can allow you to make monthly payments on your balance and have your bench warrants(s) recalled.”42 Aberdeen’s third letter to plaintiffs states, “You have previously entered into a payment plan agreement that
39 Exhibit 2. Aberdeen Enterprizes, “Two Things You Need to Know!” 40 Exhibit 5, “Collection Process” Aberdeen Enterprizes 41 “Sample – 1st Notice / First Letter” Aberdeen Enterprises 42 Exhibit 4 “2nd Notice / Second Letter” Aberdeen Enterprises
28

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 29 of 103
covers a specific account or accounts that is now in default. We are required to report this default to the courts, which could result in the issuance of a bench warrant for your arrest and will increase the costs that you will owe.” These letters are sent in addition to the numerous phone calls made to plaintiffs threatening them with warrants if they fail to make payments. They collect over a million dollars a month. 52. When a plaintiff calls Aberdeen after receiving a letter, the case managers are told to say the following: “Thank you for calling Aberdeen Enterprizes this is Greg how can I help you?—One the letter you received there will be an account ID in the upper right hand corner, please share that with me.—Mr. Smith you have a balance of $2612.75 and a failure to pay warrant for court costs and fines with Osage County. Do you have the ability to pay this balance in full today? –If you are not able to pay the balance in full, we can set up a payment plan of $1000 down and monthly payments of $125. We also accept payments online and over with phone with your credit or debit care. Upon receiving your down payment, we will send a request to have the FTP warrant recalled and make the county aware of your payment plan. We will set up a reminder call three days before your payment is due to help ensure that you stay current with your payments. How would you like to make the down payment?”43 53. There is no pretense of the interaction being other than month for warrant recall. No attempt is made at determining ability to pay or suggesting alternatives such as going to the judge or court clerk. This is simply extortion. 54. For outbound calls, used when Aberdeen has been given telephone contact information. “Hello this is Greg from Aberdeen. I am calling for Mr. Terry Smith. Is Mr. Smith
43 Exhibit 6, “Call Flow” Aberdeen Enterprizes
29

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 30 of 103
available?—Mr. Smith, we handle unpaid court cost that has bad a FTP warrant issued on the case and we are calling you in regards to an issue with Osage County. Our records show there is an outstanding balance of $680 for unpaid court cost. Are you able to pay this in full today? – Okay, we can also set up a payment place with a down payment of $250 and $125 monthly until the balance is paid in full. –Mr. Smith because you are on SSI disability of $770 a month and receive no other income, we can come down to $150 down and set you on month payments of $50. We take that payment over the phone with a debit or credit card. –Yes sir, we can set that first payment for the 3rd of the month when your check is deposited, but just remember you will have a warrant until the down payment is made. If you have any problems as the months go by, please give us a call so that we can try to assist you in any way that we can. Mr. Smith, if you will send a copy of your awards letter we will put it in your file for future reference.”44 55. As explained, supra, people on disability are already living 27% below the federal poverty line, and Aberdeen is asking for nearly 20% of the plaintiff’s month income to release the warrant and then $50 per month thereafter. These people are indigent by any standards. They were found to be paupers by the court in in order to get counsel appointed. They fall below they federal poverty guidelines. They were referred to the collection agency in the first place because they missed a payment or signing up with the Cost Administrator. 56. When a plaintiff has fallen behind on payments to Aberdeen and proactively calls to avoid a warrant, this is what they are told: “Thank you for calling Aberdeen Enterprizes this is Greg how can I help you? –On that letter you received there is an
44 Id.
30

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 31 of 103
account ID number in the upper right hand corner could you share that number with me? ---After reviewing your account I see that we sent you that letter in regards to your account going delinquent 60 days. When an account is 60 days delinquent, the county could reissue a FTP warrant. We want to get you back on track and get this account current before that happens. You are $200 past due, are you able to pay that today? – if you are able to make a regular payment for this month and half of what you are behind, you can do the same next month to get caught up. When you are current, we can go back to the $100 per month. As always we can process your payment via Visa, Master Card, cash, or money order. Thank you for getting back to us about this matter, we look forward to helping you get this issue resolved.” 57. There is no part of the interaction in which Aberdeen employees asks about ability to pay or suggests that the person see a judge. The interactions are a closed loop between Aberdeen, the Sheriffs’ Association, law enforcement who makes the arrest, and the pauper at their mercy. 58. When Aberdeen learns that the impoverished plaintiff has children, this fact does not mitigate the debt, but rather is exploited. Aberdeen case managers are told to say, “I understand that is a lot to come up with at once. What do you do for a living? Is it just you on your own? Like I said I want to help you get this resolved. I would not want you to get pick up on this warrant and not be there for your kids.”45 59. Under “Negotiation” Aberdeen counters legitimate reasons why people cannot pay. “Listen to any objections (Can’t get a job, on fixed income, etc.) Overcome the objections (Job list, special arrangements for people on SSI, etc.) I understand it is tough out there, but we do offer a job list that could give you some leads on maybe a
45 Id.
31

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 32 of 103
better job that does hire people with a criminal record. With your situation I can definitely work with you and I can get that down payment down to half that and set you up for $___ down and then lower that month payment to $___ a month.”46 60. Aberdeen admits that plaintiffs may either pay “the client” (Court Cost Administrator for each county) or Aberdeen but they “believe that recovery is significantly higher if Aberdeen processes the payments exclusively. Client recovery requires the defendant to be proactive in a way that will reduce the likelihood of full recovery. Aberdeen has found that creating a relationship, completing an initial payment, and consistent contact with the defendant generates greater recovery with less reliance on the defendant.” In other words, they discourage people coming in the Cost Administrator to pay fines and costs, which is the function of the Cost Administrator. Instead, they imply they can get more money from the impoverished person through regularly contacting them with threats of warrants. 61. Under “General Guidelines for Warrant Recalls”
• “We do not recall warrants, the county does. We send a request to have the warrant recalled.” However, the county is extremely responsive. “It takes anywhere from 1 hour to 72 hours for the county to get the warrant recalled.”
• “Any time that we take a payment on a case with a failure to pay warrant, we are required to send a request to have the warrant recalled. You must also make sure that the case is put into the correct status code when the first payment is made.” There is no oversight from the courts or the Sheriffs’ Association that the case is
46 Id.
32

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 33 of 103
put in correctly or warrants are issued or recalled by mistake. • “We can only get Failure to Pay warrants recalled. (Failure to Appear in some
exceptions). Again, this is done without court oversight. 62. According to numerous plaintiffs, if Aberdeen wants $500 down, for example, they will refuse to take $100, even if that is all the plaintiff can afford. Collateral Consequences 63. According to the Plaintiffs, they cannot receive food stamps if there is a warrant for Failure to Pay. 64. Housing assistance for the mentally ill is unavailable until a Failure to Pay warrant is lifted. 65. One’s driver’s license is suspended when a plaintiff is unable to pay fines and costs. 66. Warrants have a huge adverse impact on one’s ability to get a job. Most employers will not hire a person who has a warrant issued for his or her arrest. Warrants for Failure to Pay 67. The cash bond amount for the warrant issued is generally the entire amount owed. For example, for putative class member, Montell Fisher, a “BENCH WARRANT ISSUED FAILED TO PAY BY ORDER OF THE HONORABLE COST ADMIN. JUDGE (GENERAL)” The total bond amount is $3160.99, which is the amount owed both to the court and to Aberdeen, combined. Also noted on the warrant, “Comment: Attention: BOOKING DEPT – DEFT MAY BE RELEASED UPON A CASH PAYMENT IN FULL OR SET FOR THE COST DOCKET.” 68. There is no indication of when this “cost docket” might take place, and no authority for
33

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 34 of 103
demanding the entire balance up front in cash from an indigent plaintiff without a hearing. No policy to give plaintiffs a way to ask for a hearing 69. The Rules of the OCCA are clear: “If the defendant fails to make an installment payment when due, he/she must be given an opportunity to be heard as to the refusal or neglect to pay the installment when due. If no satisfactory explanation is given at the hearing on failure to pay, the defendant may then be incarcerated. If a defendant has the ability to pay but due to exigent circumstances or misfortune fails to make payment of a particular installment when due, he/she may be given further opportunity to satisfy the fine and/or costs, at the discretion of the court, to be governed by the facts and circumstances of each particular case.”47 No policy is in place across the counties for the plaintiffs to have an opportunity to be heard. 70. The clients could, in theory, file a pro se motion to get a Rule 8 Hearing. Forms could be made available at the Cost Administrator’s desk in order to do just that. Even when a request for a Rule 8 Hearing is made by an attorney, there is no guarantee that a hearing will be granted.48 Instead, the protocol is for the indigent defendants to be found able to pay without questions that would cast light on whether that is a proper assessment, and then provide no relief from warrants other than payment or jail. This cycle is repeated, and when the debt is sent to Aberdeen for collection (with the ability to have warrants for Failure to Pay issued), the amount the pauper’s owe is automatically increased by one-third.
47 OCCA Rule 8.4. 48 See Motion for Relief of Fines and Costs filed September 29, 2015 in Tulsa County cases CF-2014-5582, CF-15601, CF-14-306, CF-14-3249, CF-15-423, September 30, 2015 in cases CF-12-3706, CF-13-3247, CF-14-2560, CF11-4166, CF-11-3211, October 1, 2015 in CF-13-3882 which were never considered or set for hearing.
34

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 35 of 103
Law Regarding Incarceration for Failure to Pay 71. The Department of Justice has issued warnings regarding the collection of fines and
costs. Our system is essentially the same as the one in Ferguson Missouri which received so much negative attention for funding their justice system on the backs of the poor. More recently, DOJ sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to city and state judges across the nation warning them that a defendant cannot be jailed simply because that person cannot pay fines and costs. The DOJ states, “To help judicial actors protect individuals’ right and avoid unnecessary harm, we discuss below a set of basic constitutional principles relevant to the enforcement of fines and fees. These Principles, grounded in the rights to due process and equal protection, require the following:
(A) Courts must not incarcerate a person for nonpayment of fines or fees without first conducting an indigency determination and establishing that the failure to pay was willful; There are tens of thousands of indigent Oklahomans with Failure to Pay warrants outstanding that are subject to illegal detention. (B) Courts must consider alternatives to incarceration for indigent defendants unable to pay fines and fees; Neither the Oklahoma Counties, the Sheriffs’ Association, nor Aberdeen have a policy that allows for alternatives to payment. The Rule 8 Forms that give such alternative are a fiction. Judges do not inquire about indigency and automatically give every defendant “standard” fines and costs without benefit of alternatives. (C) Courts must not condition access to a judicial hearing on the
35

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 36 of 103
prepayment of fines or fees; If plaintiffs fail to pay what Aberdeen requires, a warrant is issued. (D) Courts must provide meaningful notice and, in appropriate cases, counsel, when enforcing fines and fees; No notice is given when warrants are issued. (E) Courts must not use arrest warrants or license suspensions as a means of coercing the payment of court debt when individuals have not been afforded constitutionally adequate procedural protections; Warrants and license suspensions are the only enforcement mechanism for collecting debt from indigent defendants. To make matters worse, Judges, Counties, Public Defenders, Cost Administrators, the Sheriffs’ Association, and Aberdeen all have conflict of interest as the collection of fines and costs directly benefit their retirement fund. (F) Courts must not employ bail or bond practices that cause indigent defendants to remain incarcerated solely because they cannot afford to pay for their release; and The bond practices in Oklahoma Counties violate this guideline every day. (G) Courts must safeguard against unconstitutional practices by court staff and private contractors. Aberdeen and the Sheriffs’ Association operate with little to no oversight from the courts. Ballard and Equal Protection 72. In Ballard v. State, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found that the imposition
36

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 37 of 103
of fines and costs did not unfairly discriminate against indigent defendants because judges had alternatives to financial penalties:
The Legislature also inserted a provision in the statute providing that if a defendant “is without means” to pay the fine, fees or costs, these fines, fees or costs shall be entered on the judgment docket, putting the court in the same position as any other judgment creditor. Id. It is this provision—providing for penalties for a willful refusal to pay, but providing for alternate remedies if a defendant is unable to pay—that enables the assessment to withstand a constitutional challenge by an indigent on equal protection grounds. If a defendant cannot pay the assessment because he is without means to do so, he is not thrown into prison or otherwise punished.49 73. The Rule 8 Form used in some counties such as Tulsa, provides judges the option to waive the fines and costs or assign work hours instead – giving the Court the ability to withstand constitutional challenge. However, that protection from Constitutional challenge is in jeopardy if the options are, in practice, fiction. Judges rarely, if ever, assign indigent plaintiffs work hours instead of fines and costs. Aberdeen has no ability to offer alternatives nor incentive to recommend those alternatives to the court over a request for a warrant. Furthermore, while the form makes clear that the defendants will be incarcerated for failure to pay, no information is given to direct the defendant to seek another Rule 8 hearing to petition for relief from fines and costs. Many of these indigent clients live in poverty, nearly always lack a complete education, and frequently suffer from mental illness and addiction. They cannot, because of their poverty, hire an attorney to petition the court for relief. The Public Defender’s Office is not notified when a client is incarcerated on a failure to pay warrant or when a warrant is issued. Whatever findings are made concerning ability to pay are being made at sentencing,
49 State v. Ballard, 1994 OK CR 6, 868 P.2d 738, 741.
37

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 38 of 103
making the issue ripe at that time, and continuing to be ripe as the collection process
continues.
Before incarceration, a hearing must be held to determine if the defendant refuses to pay or is unable to pay
74. Oklahoma statutes provide instructions for those who cannot or will not pay fines and
costs.
…. if the defendant shall refuse to pay the fine, fees or costs, the payment of such fees and costs, in addition to the payment of the fine assessed, shall be enforced by imprisonment until the same shall be satisfied at a rate of Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) per day of such fees and costs, or fine, or both, or shall be satisfied at a rate of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per day of such fees and costs, or fine, or both, should the defendant perform useful labor. If the defendant is without means to pay the fine, fees or costs, the total amount owed shall be entered upon the judgment docket and thereupon the same remedies shall be available for the enforcement of said judgment as are available to any other judgment creditor.50 75. The statute is clear that defendants who refuse to pay must be incarcerated and given
$25 or $50 a day toward fines and costs. This is not the current practice. For at least the
past year, warrants have been issued without the defendants having been notified. A
cash bond is set at $500 in every case. In the past, when they were arrested and booked,
many stayed in custody for up to 14 days without seeing a lawyer or a judge. They were
not brought in for a hearing to determine if the failure to pay was the result of refusal or
inability to pay – they were simply incarcerated, and they received no credit toward
what they owed.
76. For example, the defendant in Tulsa County cases CM-13-342, CM-10-4540, CM-08-
50 Title 28 O.S. §101.
38

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 39 of 103
6094, and CM-08-3521 was in custody from December 30, 2016 to January 5, 2017 on solely for Failure to Pay. He was released a week early because our office began to pay attention to the jail blotter looking for cases like these; such cases were not hard to find. The original minute for Mr. Harmon’s case read: COURT COST HEARING SET FOR 1/12/17. EXECUTION BOND ON CASE(S): CM-08-3521/CM-10-4540/.CM-086094/CM-2013-342. PRIOR TO THE COURT COST HEARING THE DEFENDANT MAY AT ANY TIME PAY A TOTAL CASH PAYMENT OF ($500.00), BE RELEASED AND ORDERED TO REPORT IMMEDIATELY TO COST ADMINISTRATION FOR INFORMATION PERTAINING TO ABERDEEN ENTERPRIZES II OR CALL ABERDEEN ENTERPRIZES II TO SET UP PAYMENT ARRANGEMENTS ON THE REMAINING BALANCE. **2ND ABERDEEN**” In other words, he had been in custody since December 30, 2016 and the judge set his “cost hearing” for 13 days later on January 12. 77. This “cost hearing” did not take place. Defendants were set for a hearing that never happened; they were simply released and told to call Aberdeen collection agency. 78. This case is instructive in another manner – the court’s policy of issuing warrants without knowing if the failure to pay was because of inability to pay or refusal to pay. . On October 2, 2013, the following minute was entered: “MILLER, ANTHONY: BENCH WARRANT ISSUED FOR FAILURE TO PAY A CASH PAYMENT OF $386.80. **DID NOT PAY ABERDEEN, 2ND BENCH WARRANT ISSUED, DO NOT RELEASE**” Therefore, whomever is reading the minute is specifically warned not to release the defendant even though there is no indication that a finding was made, pursuant to 28 O.S. §101, that his failure to pay was a refusal rather than an inability.
39

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 40 of 103
The “Do not release” order is not an aberration; rather, it appears to be a long standing
policy.
79. The second portion of 28 O.S. §101 instructs the court of what to do if the defendant is
without means to pay the fine, fees or costs. “[T]he total amount owed shall be entered
upon the judgment docket and thereupon the same remedies shall be available for the
enforcement of said judgment as are available to any other judgment creditor.” On the
face of the statute, the debt should be forwarded to small claims, and the debtor might
find himself with bad credit, but not incarcerated for Failure to Pay. One statute allows
for a bench warrant and incarceration for a civil debt - Title 12 O.S. §842 (A), regarding
asset hearings:
At any time after a final judgment, order, or decree is filed, on application of the judgment creditor, a judge of the court in which the final judgment, order, or decree was rendered shall order the judgment debtor to appear before the judge, or a referee appointed by the judge, at a time and place specified in the order, to answer concerning the judgment debtor’s property. The judge may, by order, enjoin the judgment debtor from alienating, concealing, or encumbering any of the judgment debtor’s nonexempt property pending the hearing and further order of the court. Upon the judgment debtor’s disclosure of any nonexempt property, proceedings as provided by law may be had for the application of the property to the satisfaction of the judgment. If the judgment debtor is personally served with an order to appear pursuant to this section, the judge issuing the order may authorize the issuance of either a contempt citation or a bench warrant for the judgment debtor’s failure to comply with the order. If the judgment debtor is served by other than personal service, the judge may authorize the issuance of a contempt citation for the judgment debtor’s failure to comply with the order.
40

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 41 of 103
80. In essence, this statute allows a judge to issue a bench warrant for Failure to Appear at an asset hearing after the debtor has been personally served. This process outlined by statute differs in important ways from the manner in which warrants are issued for Failure to Pay. First, there is personal service for the defendant to appear. Even if we assume that personal service occurs at the Rule 8 Hearing during sentencing when a judge orders the defendant to report to the Cost Administrator, warrants have been issued long after the defendants appear at Cost Administration. That is, for criminal defendants, warrants were issued Failure to Pay, but for civil debtors, the warrants were issued for Failure to Appear.51 We are unaware of any statue which allows civil remedy, as required by 28 O.S. §101, “available for the enforcement of said judgment as are available to any other judgment creditor,” that includes repeated incarceration for lack of payment.
81. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Rules also provide for the circumstances under which defendants might be incarcerated for Failure to Pay. Rule 8.2 states that “[i]f the defendant, by judicial finding, is financially able but refuses or neglects to pay the fine and/or costs in accordance with the court order, he/she may be immediately confined. See Section 983(A) of Title 22.” In the past,, there has been no proper hearing by our district court judges before the warrant is issued to determine if the failure to pay is the result of unwillingness or inability; furthermore, even after incarceration, defendants do not see a judge to make a determination. They are simply released if they come up with the cash bond or are held and then released to Cost Administration or Aberdeen if they cannot make a cash bond. The statutes and court rules assume that the
51 See “BENCH WARRANT ISSUED FAILED TO PAY BY ORDER OF THE HONORABLE COST. ADMIN. JUDGE (GENERAL),” attached.
41

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 42 of 103
defendants’ financial situation is taken into account, when in practice, the court doesn’t hear the defendants’ financial situation even after they have been placed into custody. Collecting fines and costs from people on public assistance is illegal. 82. As stated, supra, Aberdeen advertises to the Sheriffs’ Assocation and the Counties that they will collect from people on a fixed income from Social Security. This is illegal. Under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C §407(a) “none of the moneys paid” as part of a social security benefit “shall be subject to the execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law.” In Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board, 409 U.S. 413, 93 S. Ct. 590, 34 L. Ed 2nd 608 (1973), the Supreme Court found that funds from social security were protected from claims from state governments. Id. at 417. Oklahoma has not made a specific ruling regarding the protection of social security moneys from payment of criminal fines, fees and costs. However, based on this Supreme Court ruling, many other courts have held that states cannot order individuals to pay legal financial obligations, such as fines, fees and costs, from social security benefits. See In re Lampart, 306 Mich. App. 226. 856 N.W. 2d 192 (2014); State v. Eaton, 323 Mont. 287, 99 P.3d 661 (2004). These courts have ruled that legal financial obligations, such as criminal fines, fees and costs, count as “other legal process” under 42 U.S.C. §407(a). Additionally, the Supreme Court in Wash. State Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371, 385, 123 S. Ct. 107, 154 L.Ed. 2d 972 (2003), explained that “other legal process” is a process where “some judicial or quasi-judicial mechanism, though not necessarily an elaborate one, by which control over property passes from one person to another in order to discharge or secure discharge of an allegedly existing or anticipate liability.” In
42

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 43 of 103
this case, the Court has ordered Ms. Bailey to pay $40 per month to the district attorney and a monthly amount to the Tulsa County cost administrator out of her monthly social security payment. That order meets the Supreme Court’s definition of “other legal process.”
Class Action Allegations 83. 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. 84. A class action is a superior means, and the only practicable means, by which Plaintiffs and unknown Class members can challenge the Defendants’ unlawful debt-collection scheme. 85. This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a Class action pursuant to Rule 23(a)(1)-(4), Rule 23(b)(2), and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 86. This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of those provisions. 87. Plaintiffs propose the following class for which they seek declaratory, injunctive, and monetary damages: The Plaintiffs in this case are all people living in poverty, found to be indigent by the Courts of Oklahoma Counties, who were assigned a Public Defender or counsel through the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System throughout the term of their case, who are victims of an extortion scheme in which the Defendants have conspired to extract as much money as possible, from indigent defendants through a pattern of illegal and shocking behavior. Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)
43

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 44 of 103
88. Over the past several months and years, the Counties, Sheriffs’ Association and Aberdeen have required and currently requires thousands of people to pay court fines and costs, plus a 30% mark up and extra fees for warrants, directly to Aberdeen. Pursuant to the Defendants’ policy and practice, all of these people are currently being threatened with arrest and jailing if they do not make the payments in the amount or frequency demanded by the Defendants.
89. The names, case numbers, probation documents, dates of imprisonment, financial receipts, and relevant records of the class members are in the possession of the Defendants and are easily ascertainable.
90. The Defendants have followed and continue to follow materially the same policies, practices, and procedures with respect to all of the Class members.
91. Those who still owe debt payments or who will incur such debts will be subjected to the same ongoing policies and practices absent the relief sought in this Complaint.
Commonality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). 92. 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 Defendants’ policies, practices, and procedures violated their rights and relief requiring that those policies, practices and procedures be changed to protect their rights in the future. 93. Among the most important, but not the only, common questions of fact are:
A. Whether Aberdeen Enterprizes and the Sheriffs’ Association contracted for the provision of probation services;
44

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 45 of 103
B. Factual determinations concerning how Aberdeen and the Sheriffs’ Association earns its profit and what fees it charges pursuant to the contractual arrangement;
C. All of the facts surrounding how the County, Aberdeen and the Sheriffs’ Association operate the collection system pursuant to the Contract, including who is placed on a warrant request list; how people are placed on payment plans and with Aberdeen; what conditions are imposed by Aberdeen.; what policies and practices are in place for plaintiffs under Aberdeen’s supervision; what policies and practices are in place for determining ability to pay; what policies and practices, if any, are used to determine indigency; what policies and practices are used to initiate requests for warrants; what policies and practices are in place for collecting money; and how and under what circumstances Rule 8 hearings are conducted.
94. Among the most important common question of law are: A. Whether as a matter of federal law, a County can choose to abandon the traditional methods of collection of fines and costs contract to employ a private company, with a substantial kick back to the Sheriffs’ Association, with all of the same duties and powers but who has a personal financial conflict of interest in the management and outcome of every case through a “user funded model”; B. Whether a contract creating a debt collector with such a personal financial stake is void; C. Whether a government can place people on onerous payment plans that involve extra fees and serious intrusions on liberty based on wealth status; 45

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 46 of 103
D. Whether a government and a private company, working together, can circumvent state debt-collection protections by imposing onerous actions that no private creditor could lawfully impose;
E. Whether it is lawful to issue and execute arrest warrants based solely on nonpayment, especially in the case of people known or adjudged in advance to be indigent;
F. Whether it is lawful to detain a person after arrest because the person cannot afford to pay a preset money bond without any inquiry into ability to pay or any other findings;
G. Whether it is lawful to use legal process concerning the imposition and collection of fines and costs for criminal cases with the ulterior motive to earn profit.
95. These common legal and factual questions arise from one central scheme and set of policies and practices: the Defendants’ enormously profitable contractual relationship governing their collection practices. The Defendants operate 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 relief that they seek.
Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). 96. The named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the
Class, and they have the same interests in this case as all other members of the Class that they represent. Each of them suffered injuries from the failure of the Defendants
46

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 47 of 103
to comply with the basic constitutional and statutory provisions detailed below. The answer to whether the Defendants’ scheme of policies and practices is unlawful in the ways alleged will determine the claims of the named Plaintiffs and every other Class member. 97. If the named Plaintiffs succeed in their claims that the Defendants’ policies and practices concerning debt collection through misdemeanor probation for fines, fees, costs, and surcharges violate the law in the ways alleged in each claim of the Complaint, then that ruling will likewise benefit every other member of the Class.
Adequacy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). 98. The named Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class because they are
members of the Class and because their interests coincide with, and are not antagonistic to, those of the Class. There are no known conflicts of interest among Class members, all of whom have a similar interest in vindicating the constitutional and statutory rights to which they are entitled. 99. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Smolen, Smolen & Roytman, PLLC and J Webb Law Firm, PLLC who have experience in litigating complex civil rights matters in federal court and extensive knowledge of both the details of the Defendants’ scheme and the relevant constitutional and statutory law. 100. Counsel’s efforts have so far included extensive investigation over a period of months, including numerous interviews with witnesses, plaintiffs and their families, attorneys practicing in counties across Oklahoma, community members, experts in the functioning of Oklahoma criminal courts, and national experts in debt collection and constitutional law.
47

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 48 of 103
101. Counsel have also observed and participated in numerous courtroom hearings in Oklahoma Counties in order to compile a detailed understanding of state law and practices as they relate to federal constitutional requirements. Counsel has studied the way that these systems function in other cities and counties in order to investigate the wide array of options in practice for municipalities.
102. As a result, counsel has devoted enormous time and resources to becoming intimately familiar with the Defendants’’ scheme and with all of the relevant state and federal laws and procedures that can and should govern it. Counsel has also developed relationships with man of the individuals and families most victimized by the Defendants’ practices.
103. The interests of the members of the Class will be fairly and adequately protected by the Plaintiffs and their attorneys.
Rule 23(b)(2) 104. Class action status is appropriate because the Defendants, through the policies,
practices, and procedures that make up its debt-collection scheme, have acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class. Thus, a declaration that people in the Class are entitled, as a matter of federal law, to a neutral collector without a financial conflict of interest in their case would benefit every member of the proposed Class. The same applies to legal rulings on the other claims, including: that the Contract is void; that the arrangement and the Defendants’ policies violate the Equal Protection Clause by imposing onerous debt conditions based on wealth status and by imposing debt-collection methods far more onerous than any private creditor could lawfully impose; that the scheme to issue arrest warrants based solely on non-payment violates the Fourth Amendment and procedural due
48

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 49 of 103
process; that Aberdeen and the Sheriffs’ Association abuses process by commandeering specific legal processes for the ulterior motive of earning profit; that it is unlawful to detain a person after arrest because the person cannot afford to pay a preset money bond without any inquiry into ability to pay or any other findings; and that the policy, pattern, and practice of threats to jail people for nonpayment without informing them of their rights or inquiring into their ability to pay constitutes an extortion enterprise in blatant violation of racketeering laws. 105. Injunctive relief compelling the Defendants to comply with these constitutional and statutory requirements will similarly protect each member of the Class from being subjected to the Defendants’ unlawful policies and practices with respect to the debts that they still owe and protect those who will incur such debts in the future from the same unconstitutional conduct. Therefore, declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a whole is appropriate. Rule 23(b)(3) 106. 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 named Plaintiff, as well as for the members of the Class, on what the Defendants’ policies and practices are and on whether those policies are lawful. 107. The common questions of law and fact listed above are dispositive questions in the case of every member of the Class. The question of liability can therefore be determined on a class-wide basis. Class-wide treatment of liability is a far superior method of determining the content and legality of the Defendants’ policies and practices than individual suits by tens of thousands of indigent people owing court
49

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 50 of 103
fines. To the extent that individual damages will vary, they will vary depending in large part on the amount of time that a person was subjected to the unlawful scheme and the amount of money extorted from them. Determining damages for individual Class members can thus typically be handled in a ministerial fashion based on easily verifiable records in the Defendants’ possession. If need be, individual hearings on Class- member specific damages based on special circumstances and particular hardships endured as a result of Defendants’ extortion scheme can be held after Class-wide liability is determined—a method far more efficient than the wholesale litigation of thousands of individual lawsuits. 108. The Plaintiffs seek the following relief and hereby demand a jury trial in this cause for all matters so appropriate.
Claims for Relief Count One: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act. 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (c) and (d) 109. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-95. 110. The Plaintiffs’ claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–68 (“RICO”), are brought against the Aberdeen Enterprizes, the Sheriffs’ Assocation, and not the individual Oklahoma counties.
111. The Plaintiffs are “persons” with standing to sue within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1964(c).
112. Defendants Aberdeen Enterprizes II and the Sheriffs’ Assocation are “RICO persons” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3) because it is an entity
50

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 51 of 103
capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property. 113. Each of the Defendants are a “RICO person” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §
1963(1) because they are capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property. A. The RICO Enterprise 114. The Sheriffs’ Association, together with Aberdeen and the other unnamed conspirators, constitute an association-in-fact, and therefore an enterprise within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). This RICO Enterprise is an ongoing business relationship with the common purpose of maximizing the collection of court fines, costs, and fees by Aberdeen without consideration of the probationer’s ability to pay. 115. The RICO Enterprise is engaged in interstate commerce because its activities and transactions relating to the collection of money, and the movement of the profit received by Defendant Aberdeen Enterprizes II pursuant to this operation, frequently requires movement and communications across state lines. Aberdeen’s case managers also use the electronic communications and the United States mail to communicate with indigent plaintiffs, including using those means to transmit threats of incarceration for nonpayment. 116. The members of the RICO Enterprise function as a continuing unit. 117. The Defendants have violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) because they are associated with an enterprise that is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate commerce and have, directly or indirectly, conducted or participated in the conduct of an enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. 118. The Defendants have violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) because they have conspired with
51

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 52 of 103
each other to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). 119. Specifically, the Defendants conducted or participated in and conspired to conduct
the affairs of the RICO Enterprise by engaging in the following predicate acts of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1):
a. Extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951; b. Extortion in violation of Title 21 Oklahoma Statute § 1481; c. Extortion Induced by Threats in violation of Title 21 Oklahoma Statute § 1482
and d. Extortion in violation of the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952. B. Predicate Acts 120. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the previously described extortion allegations. 121. The Defendants have, on their own and in conspiracy with the other participants in the RICO Enterprise, obtained by threat the various fines and costs associated with criminal cases, with intent to deprive indigent persons of this money. 122. The Defendants, individually and in conspiracy with the other participants in the RICO Enterprise, threatened and continue to threaten Plaintiffs that if they do not agree to pay money to Aberdeen, they: (a) will have a warrant issued ( b ) will be arrested; (c) will face testimony by Aberdeen against them regarding non-payment, but without revealing the reasons for non-payment (including an inability to pay); (d) will be charged additional fees; and (e) will be sent to jail. 123. These threats are inherently wrongful because they are motivated out of a desire to extort, because they are premised on deception concerning the facts and in knowing violation of the legal rights of the victims, and because they are demanded
52

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 53 of 103
pursuant to an unlawful contract. 124. Because of these unlawful threats, the Plaintiffs paid the fees demanded by Aberdeen.
i. Extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 125. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the previously described extortion
allegations. 126. The Defendants have, individually and in conspiracy with the other
participants in the RICO Enterprise, obtained fees from Plaintiffs with their consent, which consent has been induced by the wrongful use of fear in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act). 127. The proceeds of Defendants’ extortionate activities were used in commerce, and therefore affected commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, as these terms are understood by 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Extortion in Violation of the Travel Act 128. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the previously described extortion allegations. 129. The Defendants have, individually and in conspiracy with the other participants in the RICO Enterprise, obtained by threat fees from Plaintiffs, with intent to deprive them of this money and the enjoyment of their state and federal rights, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (Travel Act) and Oklahoma law.
130. The Defendants have traveled in interstate commerce, and have used the mail and facilities in interstate commerce to distribute the proceeds of the extortionate scheme and to communicate with each other and with their victims concerning the operation of the scheme. in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(1). The Defendants have 53

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 54 of 103
traveled in interstate commerce, and have used the mail and facilities in interstate commerce to otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of an extortionate scheme, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3). Pattern of Racketeering Activity 131. The Private Probation Defendants and the other participants in the RICO Enterprise have engaged in the racketeering activity described in this Complaint repeatedly since at least 2010 and continuing through the present with respect to thousands of indigent persons in Oklahoma Counties. These racketeering acts are part of the enterprise’s regular way of doing business. 132. The racketeering acts of the Defendants and the other participants in the RICO enterprise have a similar purpose: to maximize the collection of court fines, costs, and fees by Aberdeen Enterprizes II without consideration of the individual’s ability to pay and without informing probationers of their legal rights. 133. The racketeering acts of the Defendants and the other participants in the RICO Enterprise have yielded similar results and caused similar injuries to the Plaintiffs: the Plaintiffs have, inter alia, all been subjected to fees paid to Defendant Aberdeen as a result of their unlawful conduct. Moreover, the Plaintiffs have all also been subjected to threats of physical confinement and actual physical confinement as well as relinquishing their federal and state rights through onerous and unlawful conditions. 134. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, the racketeering acts have similar participants: Aberdeen and the Sheriffs’ Association Defendants, County officials,
54

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 55 of 103
and the other participants in the RICO Enterprise. 135. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants and the other participants in
the RICO Enterprise, through the RICO Enterprise, directed their racketeering activities at similar victims: the named Plaintiffs specifically, and more generally all Oklahoma criminal defendants who were appointed counsel due to indigency, and whose cases were sent to Aberdeen Enterprizes for collection. 136. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, the racketeering acts of Defendants and the other participants in the RICO Enterprise have similar methods of commission, namely: extorting the named Plaintiffs and, more generally, all indigent Oklahoma criminal defendants who cannot afford to pay their entire court debts on the date they are adjudicated or assigned, into paying Aberdeen Enterprizes.
C. Injury 137. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ and the other participants in the
RICO Enterprise’s willful, knowing, and intentional acts discussed in this Complaint, the Plaintiffs have suffered injuries to their property. Plaintiffs have all been subjected to fees and surcharges paid to Defendant Aberdeen and the Sheriffs’ Association and they have been forced to continue paying these fees even when they cannot afford to do so without sacrificing the basic necessities of life, resulting in economic harm to themselves and their families. 138. The Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this action. Count two: Defendants’ Use of a Private Actor With a Personal Financial Stake in the Outcome of Judicial Proceedings As a Supposedly Neutral Collection Agency Violates Plaintiffs’ Due Process Rights.
55

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 56 of 103
139. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-126 above. 140. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits neutral judicial
officials and neutral civil and criminal law enforcement actors from having a personal financial interest in the cases prosecuted and decided by them in our legal system. The County has contracted with a private, for-profit corporation to perform a traditional court function— fine and cost collection—and, critically, made the resolution of the Plaintiffs’ cases contingent on the demands, advice, recommendations, discretionary decisions, enforcement actions, testimony, and representations of this private entity. 141. In contrast to the traditional and longstanding role of the cost administrator, Aberdeen has a direct financial stake in every decision that they make regarding case supervision, enforcement, and revocation. Aberdeen has a personal financial interest to conduct its role as a court cost collector in a way that maximizes its personal profit and not as a neutral public court officer. 142. Because this non-neutral actor profits significantly from the decisions about what fines and costs are levied, what conditions to require, what information to provide indigent criminal defendants about their rights and obligations, how to enforce those conditions, what testimony to provide, and what sanction to recommend, there is a clear risk that those financial interests will affect its judgment when it makes in those decisions. There is also overwhelming evidence that these financial interests have and continue to have an impact on every decision of Aberdeen’s employees. Because this private entity has a significant personal financial interest in how these cases are managed and resolved, unlike a traditional neutral judicial actor, prosecuting
56

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 57 of 103
authority, or probation department, the Defendants’ policies and practices violate the longstanding due process restrictions against such self-interested financial arrangements in American courts of justice. 143. Under the Defendants’ scheme, Aberdeen can not only decide whether to initiate warrant requests, but it can also influence what conditions are imposed.52 It can then make rules and determine whether and when to petition for warrants based on the perceived violation of those rules or other conditions. It also controls when and how much the indigent is required to pay, and what information is provided to or withheld from them concerning their legal rights. Then, Aberdeen serves as the main witness or, as often happens, Aberdeens’s allegations are treated as evidence at any Cost Hearing that will likely results in incarceration for failure to pay. Count Three: The Contract Between Aberdeen and the Sheriffs’ Association Is Void and Unenforceable Under Oklahoma Law. 144. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-131 above. 145. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief voiding the Contract between Defendants Aberdeen, the Sheriff’s Association, and the Counties of Oklahoma contrary to Oklahoma law. 146. The Contract between Aberdeen and the Sheriffs’ Association, the terms and provisions of which are set forth above, and included as Exhibit 1, is harmful to the public and is in conflict with federal and state law. As set forth more fully herein, and incorporated by reference above, the Contract between Aberdeen and the Sheriffs’ Association violates the U.S. Constitution, the parallel protections of the Oklahoma Constitution, as well as Oklahoma’s laws and judicial opinions. To take only
52 Warrants issued for a certain bond amount given to the County by Aberdeen.
57

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 58 of 103
several of the many examples discussed in this Complaint, the Contract unconstitutionally and unconscionably establishes a private actor with a personal financial stake in the outcome of each case as a supposedly neutral state debt collector mandates that particular actions be taken and particular amounts charged in particular judicial cases, and requires that nonpayment of costs and fees be made a “violation.” 147. The Plaintiffs are intended third-party beneficiaries to the Contract between Aberdeen and the Sheriffs’ Association in that the Contract specifically contemplates the provision of private services to residents of Oklahoma Counties served by their elected Sheriffs, such as the Plaintiffs. Specifically, the Contract between Aberdeen and the Sheriffs’ Association provides for a monopoly on cost collection services in Oklahoma Counties and ensures that all residents placed on Aberdeen’s client list (including the Plaintiffs) will be serviced by Aberdeen. 148. Accordingly, because the Contract between Aberdeen and the Sheriffs’ Association prescribes for private debt collection services to be conducted through a “user funded model” and in a manner inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, the parallel protections of the Oklahoma Constitution, and Oklahoma’s laws and judicial opinions, the Plaintiffs are forced, and were specifically intended to, suffer the unlawful terms of the Contract. Count Four: Defendants’ Use of Jail, Threats of Jail, and an Onerous System to Collect Debts Owed to the County Violates Equal Protection Because It Imposes Unduly Harsh and Punitive Restrictions On Debtors Whose Creditor Is the Government Compared To Those Who Owe Money to Private Creditors. 149. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-136 above. 150. The United States Supreme Court has held that, when governments seek to recoup
58

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 59 of 103
court costs from indigent defendants, they may not take advantage of their position to impose unduly restrictive methods of collection solely because the debt is owed to the government and not to a private creditor. Not only does the County place indigent people on standardized and overly onerous fines and costs lasting years, when the cases of wealthier people would be closed or unsupervised, but by imposing imprisonment, repeated threats of imprisonment, onerous liberty-restricting economic conditions, revoked or withheld drivers’ licenses, extra fees and surcharges, and other restrictions on Plaintiffs, the County, Aberdeen, and the Sheriffs’ Association take advantage of its control over the machinery of the County jail, prosecutorial, court, and police systems to deny debtors the statutory protections that every other Oklahoma debtor may invoke against a private creditor. The Defendants deprive the Plaintiffs of these protections even though Oklahoma law explicitly states that the debts owed to the Defendants are subject to Oklahoma’s law on civil judgments. 151. Many people like the Plaintiffs owing money to the County have to borrow money, ration public benefits, convert federal means tested disability checks into money orders for Aberdeen, and go further into debt in order to pay off the County because other non-government creditors are not permitted to jail them, threaten to jail them, or compel their repeated arrest and court appearances for years for non-payment of debt. This coercive policy and practice constitutes invidious discrimination and violates the fundamental principles of equal protection of the laws. Count Five: Defendants’ Policy and Practice of Placing People Who Owe Debts to the County on Onerous Probation Supervision Based Solely on Their Wealth Status Violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
59

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 60 of 103
152. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-139 above. 153. The Defendants’ policy and practice is to use Aberdeen’s debt collection for
those people who cannot afford to pay the court judgment in full. If the person can pay, the person pays and they are not supervised by Aberdeen. If the person is too poor to pay, the County and Sheriffs’ Association has a policy and practice of turning the debt over to Aberdeen for collection, including forcing the person to abide by conditions agreed upon by Aberdeen, the Sheriffs’ Association, and the County that seriously restrict the person’s liberty and that purport to subject the person to punishment in jail if those conditions (including payment of extra fees to Aberdeen) are violated. The same is true throughout the duration of the collection process, which can last for decades after the case is closed; this results in of hounding of the poor for years more than those who are wealthy, faced with the same charges, but able to pay. This policy and practice of altering punishment based solely on wealth status violates fundamental principles of Due Process and Equal Protection. Count Six: Defendants’ Policy and Practice of Issuing and Executing Arrest Warrants Solely Based on Nonpayment of Monetary Debts Violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. 154. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-141 above. 155. The Defendants’ policy and practice is to seek, issue, and execute arrest warrants against those who have not paid their debt from Oklahoma criminal cases. These warrants are sought, issued, and served without any inquiry into the person’s ability to pay even when the Defendants have prior knowledge that the person is impoverished and unable to pay the debts or possesses other valid defenses (including against people who the Court itself has found indigent and who Aberdeen has actual
60

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 61 of 103
knowledge of indigence). These warrants are regularly sought, issued, and served without any finding of probable cause that the person has committed the elements of any offense or violation and, indeed, with actual knowledge that no willful violation has occurred. The warrants therefore are procured based on the reckless and knowingly false premise that a violation has occurred. Indeed, the warrants are procured notwithstanding Oklahoma law that a person cannot have incarcerated for the nonpayment of court costs without a finding of ability to pay. 156. The Defendants choose to pursue warrants instead of issuing summons even when they have spoken to people on the phone or in person and have the opportunity to notify them to appear in court, thus allowing Aberdeen to deprive Plaintiffs of their liberty for nonpayment prior to any meaningful pre-deprivation process (and thereby to levy additional fees and costs). Moreover, the many of the Counties’ policies and practices are to unreasonably delay presentment for judicial proceedings days or weeks for no legitimate reason. These practices violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and result in a deprivation of fundamental liberty without adequate due process. Count Seven: Defendants Violate Plaintiffs’ Rights By Jailing Them Solely Because They Cannot Afford A Preset Money Payment Prior to a Court Appearance. 157. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-144 above. 158. The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses have long prohibited keeping a person in jail because of the person’s inability to make a monetary payment. Defendants violate Plaintiffs’ rights by placing and keeping them in jail pursuant to arrest warrants sought and obtained by Aberdeen Enterprizes for allegedly failing to pay on a schedule that Aberdeen controls. Plaintiffs cannot afford to pay the amount of money bond preset by the arrest warrant without any inquiry into
61

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 62 of 103
their indigence and ability to pay, any pre-deprivation process, any assessment of alternatives to detention, or any inquiry into whether the Plaintiffs are a danger to the community or a risk of flight. Count Eight: Abuse of Process 159. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-149 above. 160. The Defendants abused the legal process to seek arrest warrants with an ulterior motive to collect additional fees. 161. When indigent plaintiffs are unable to pay what Aberdeen demands, Aberdeen alerts the Court and secures warrants for the arrest of indigent person. Moreover, Aberdeen. then participates through written documents, testimony, and informal ex parte conversations with County prosecutors and judges to secure warrants. Aberdeen engages in all of these activities with the ulterior motive of securing the additional court costs and fees that come as a matter of County policy and practice with each failure to pay. Aberdeen also engages in an abuse of process throughout its cost collection by using the order to collect not to do justice and assist indigent plaintiffs, but for the ulterior motive of making profit by setting fees and using the threat of incarceration for non-payment order to extort money.
Request for Relief WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand a jury trial for all issues so appropriate and request that this Court issue the following relief: a. A declaratory judgment that subjecting the Plaintiffs to the Defendants’ conduct as alleged in the Counts listed above is unlawful; b. An order and judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Defendants from enforcing the above-described unconstitutional and illegal policies and practices against the Plaintiffs and the Class of similarly situated people on whose behalf they are bringing suit; c. A judgment compensating the Plaintiffs and the Class of similarly situated individuals
62

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 63 of 103

for the damages that they suffered as a result of the Defendants’ unconstitutional and unlawful conduct; d. A judgment granting the treble and punitive damages authorized by statute based on the Defendants’ willful and egregious violations of the law;

e.

An order and judgment granting reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 18 U.S.C. § 1964, and any other relief this Court deems just and

proper.

Respectfully,
/s/ Daniel E. Smolen Daniel Smolen, OBA #19943 Donald E. Smolen, II, OBA #19944 Robert M. Blakemore, OBA #18656 Smolen Smolen & Roytman 701 South Cincinnati Avenue Tulsa, OK 74119 Phone: (918) 585-2667 Fax: (918) 585-2669

Respectfully,
/s/ Jill E. Webb Jill Webb, OBA #21402 J Webb Law Firm PLLC PO Box 1234 Tulsa, OK 74101 Phone: (918) 346-5664 Jill.Webb@gmail.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff 63

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 64 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 65 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 66 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 67 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 68 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 69 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 70 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 71 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 72 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 73 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 74 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 75 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 76 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 77 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 78 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 79 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 80 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 81 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 82 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 83 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 84 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 85 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 86 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 87 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 88 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 89 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 90 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 91 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 92 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 93 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 94 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 95 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 96 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 97 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 98 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 99 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 100 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 101 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 102 of 103

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 11/02/17 Page 103 of 103

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

1) CARLY GRAFF;

)

2) RANDY FRAZIER;

)

3) DAVID SMITH;

)

4) KENDALLIA KILLMAN;

)

5) LINDA MEACHUM;

)

6) CHRISTOPHER CHOATE; and

)

7) IRA LEE WILKINS;

)

)

on behalf of themselves and all others

)

similarly situated.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

1) ABERDEEN ENTERPRIZES II, INC.; )

2) JIM D. SHOFNER;

)

3) ROB SHOFNER;

)

4) OKLAHOMA SHERIFFS’

)

ASSOCIATION;

)

5) THE BOARD OF COUNTY

)

COMMISSIONERS OF THE

)

COUNTY OF TULSA;

)

6) THE BOARD OF COUNTY

)

COMMISSIONERS OF THE

)

COUNTY OF ROGERS;

)

7) VIC REGALADO, SHERIFF OF

)

TULSA COUNTY;

)

8) SCOTT WALTON, SHERIFF OF

)

ROGERS COUNTY;

)

9) JASON RITCHIE, SHERIFF OF

)

ADAIR COUNTY;

)

10) RICK WALLACE, SHERIFF OF

)

ALFALFA COUNTY;

)

11) TONY HEAD, SHERIFF OF ATOKA )

COUNTY;

)

12) RUBEN PARKER, JR., SHERIFF OF )

BEAVER COUNTY;

)

13) TONY ALMAGUER, SHERIFF OF )

BLAINE COUNTY;

)

14) CHRIS WEST, SHERIFF OF

)

CANADIAN COUNTY;

)

15) CHRIS BRYANT, SHERIFF OF

)

CARTER COUNTY;

)

Case No. 4:17-CV-606-CVE-JFJ (Amended Complaint - Class Action) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

1

16) NORMAN FISHER, SHERIFF OF

)

CHEROKEE COUNTY;

)

17) TODD GIBSON, SHERIFF OF

)

CLEVELAND COUNTY;

)

18) BRYAN JUMP, SHERIFF OF COAL )

COUNTY;

)

19) HEATH WINFREY, SHERIFF OF )

CRAIG COUNTY;

)

20) BRET BOWLING, SHERIFF OF

)

CREEK COUNTY;

)

21) HARLAN MOORE, SHERIFF OF

)

DELAWARE COUNTY;

)

22) CLAY SANDER, SHERIFF OF

)

DEWEY COUNTY;

)

23) JERRY NILES, SHERIFF OF

)

GARFIELD COUNTY;

)

24) JIM WEIR, SHERIFF OF GRADY )

COUNTY;

)

25) SCOTT STERLING, SHERIFF OF )

GRANT COUNTY;

)

26) DEVIN HUCKABAY, SHERIFF OF )

GREER COUNTY;

)

27) THOMAS MCCLENDON, SHERIFF )

OF HARPER COUNTY;

)

28) MARCIA MAXWELL, SHERIFF OF )

HUGHES COUNTY;

)

29) ROGER LEVICK, SHERIFF OF

)

JACKSON COUNTY;

)

30) JEREMIE WILSON, SHERIFF OF )

JEFFERSON COUNTY;

)

31) JON SMITH, SHERIFF OF

)

JOHNSTON COUNTY;

)

32) STEVE KELLEY, SHERIFF OF KAY )

COUNTY;

)

33) DENNIS BANTHER, SHERIFF OF )

KINGFISHER COUNTY;

)

34) JESSE JAMES, SHERIFF OF

)

LATIMER COUNTY;

)

35) ROB SEALE, SHERIFF OF

)

LeFLORE COUNTY;

)

36) MARTY GRISHAM, SHERIFF OF )

LOVE COUNTY;

)

37) DANNY CRYER, SHERIFF OF

)

MARSHALL COUNTY;

)

38) MIKE REED, SHERIFF OF MAYES )

COUNTY;

)

2

39) KEVIN CLARDY, SHERIFF OF

)

McCURTAIN COUNTY;

)

40) KEVIN LEDBETTER, SHERIFF OF )

MCINTOSH COUNTY;

)

41) DARRIN RODGERS, SHERIFF OF )

MURRAY COUNTY;

)

42) SANDY HADLEY, SHERIFF OF

)

NOWATA COUNTY;

)

43) STEVEN WORLEY, SHERIFF OF )

OKFUSKEE COUNTY;

)

44) P.D. TAYLOR, SHERIFF OF

)

OKLAHOMA COUNTY;

)

45) EDDY RICE, SHERIFF OF

)

OKMULGEE COUNTY;

)

46) EDDIE VIRDEN, SHERIFF OF

)

OSAGE COUNTY;

)

47) JEREMY FLOYD, SHERIFF OF

)

OTTAWA COUNTY;

)

48) MIKE WATERS, SHERIFF OF

)

PAWNEE COUNTY;

)

49) R.B. HAUF, SHERIFF OF PAYNE )

COUNTY;

)

50) MIKE BOOTH, SHERIFF OF

)

POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY;

)

51) B.J. HEDGECOCK, SHERIFF OF

)

PUSHMATAHA COUNTY;

)

52) DARREN ATHA, SHERIFF OF

)

ROGER MILLS COUNTY;

)

53) SHANNON SMITH, SHERIFF OF

)

SEMINOLE COUNTY;

)

54) LARRY LANE, SHERIFF OF

)

SEQUOYAH COUNTY;

)

55) MATT BOLEY, SHERIFF OF TEXAS )

COUNTY;

)

56) BOBBY WHITTINGTON, SHERIFF )

OF TILLMAN COUNTY;

)

57) CHRIS ELLIOT, SHERIFF OF

)

WAGONER COUNTY;

)

58) RICK SILVER, SHERIFF OF

)

WASHINGTON COUNTY;

)

59) ROGER REEVE, SHERIFF OF

)

WASHITA COUNTY;

)

60) RUDY BRIGGS, JR., SHERIFF OF )

WOODS COUNTY;

)

61) KEVIN MITCHELL, SHERIFF OF )

WOODWARD COUNTY

)

3

62) JUDGE DAWN MOODY;

)

63) JUDGE DOUG DRUMMOND;

)

64) JUDGE WILLIAM J. MUSSEMAN, )

JR.;

)

65) DON NEWBERRY, TULSA COUNTY )

COURT CLERK;

)

66) DARLENE BAILEY, TULSA

)

COUNTY COST ADMINISTRATOR; )

67) JUDGE TERRELL S. CROSSON; and )

68) KIM HENRY, ROGERS COUNTY )

COURT CLERK;

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint

(“Motion to Amend”). (Doc. 202.) For reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend is

GRANTED.

I. Factual Background

This case arises out of Aberdeen Enterprizes II., Inc.’s allegedly unlawful debt collection

business. The named plaintiffs, on behalf of a putative class, challenge the alleged practices of the

above-named Defendants in assessing court debts, requesting and issuing warrants on those debts,

and collecting those debts. Plaintiff Ira Lee Wilkins filed this case, on behalf of himself and the

putative class, on November 2, 2017. (Doc. 2.) Defendant Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc. filed a

Motion to Dismiss on January 11, 2018 (Doc. 8), before any Defendants had been served, though

this motion was quickly deemed moot when, after serving all Defendants in late January, all named

Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on February 1, 2018. (Doc. 76.) All

Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint by March 23, 2018. (Docs. 95, 99,

169, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, and 185.) Plaintiffs did not respond to these

4

Motions to Dismiss, but rather, filed a Motion to Amend Complaint. (Doc. 202.) Some, but not all, of the Defendants oppose this Motion to Amend.1 II. Standard for Leave to Amend
Courts should “freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). The Court has wide discretion in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. See Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006). “Refusing leave to amend is generally only ‘justified upon a showing of undue delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith or dilatory motive, failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or futility of amendment.” See Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365 (10th Cir. 1993). Additionally, a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course, either twenty-one days after service, or twenty-one days after service of a responsive pleading. FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Amendment as a matter of course after responsive pleading is meant to streamline and expedite consideration of the issues raised in the motion, as the responsive pleading may raise issues that the original pleader had not considered. FED. R. CIV. P. 15 Comm. Notes on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”)—2009 Amendment. III. Analysis
The Defendants who oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend have filed five Response briefs, which together argue that Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied for all of the reasons listed above.
1 The following Defendants oppose this Motion: Darlene Bailey, Tulsa County Cost Administrator; The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa; Don Newberry, Tulsa County Court Clerk; Vic Regalado, Sheriff of Tulsa County (“Tulsa County Defendants”) (Doc. 204); The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers; Kim Henry, Rogers County Court Clerk; Scott Walton, Sheriff of Rogers County (“Rogers County Defendants”) (Doc. 205); Oklahoma Sheriffs’ Association (Doc. 207); Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc.; Jim D. Shofner; Rob Shofner (Doc. 208); Judges Terrell S. Crosson, Doug Drummond, Dawn Moody, and William J. Musseman, Jr. (Doc. 209). The remaining Defendants do not oppose the Motion to Amend.
5

(Docs. 204, 205, 207, 208, and 209.) Additionally, Tulsa County Defendants (Doc. 204), Rogers County Defendants (Doc. 205) and Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc., Jim D. Shofner, and Rob Shofner (Doc. 208) argue in the alternative that, should the Court grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend, Plaintiffs should be required to pay all fees and costs incurred by Defendants. Finally, the Oklahoma Sheriffs’ Association argues that the Court should consider Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend in connection with Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. (Doc. 207.)
Plaintiffs, by contrast, argue that amending their complaint in response to arguments raised in Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss will increase clarity and encourage resolution of issues, and will preserve the Court’s and the Parties’ resources, without prejudice against Defendants. They also argue that the proposed amendments here do not fall within the reasons that justify denying the Motion to Amend, as identified in Frank v. U.S. West. (Doc. 202.) Further, they argue that Defendants’ request for costs should be denied, for the same reasons the Motion to Amend should be granted. (Doc. 206.) Finally, Plaintiffs argue that their Motion to Amend should not be considered with Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss for reasons of judicial economy, as the changes in the proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) will substantively affect Defendants’ arguments and Plaintiffs’ responses. (Doc. 210.)
A. Undue Delay A delay is undue when the party filing the motion has no adequate explanation for the delay, or should have known the facts upon which the proposed amendment is based but failed to include them in the original pleading. See Frank, 3 F.3d at 1365; Las Vegas Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Far West Bank, 893 F.2d 1182, 1185 (10th Cir. 1990). Courts have found that a party knew or should have known the facts upon which the proposed amendment is based in cases where the party had actual knowledge, or where the facts were of obvious importance to the party and were
6

not difficult to learn. See, e.g., Muller v. Culbertson, 408 F. App’x 194, 197 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (plaintiff’s motion to amend was denied where he changed his allegations as to the identity of his employer in response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, as plaintiff knew or should have known who his employer was); Panis v. Mission Hills Bank, 60 F. 3d 1486, 1494-95 (10th Cir. 1995) (plaintiff’s motion to amend denied where plaintiff had actual knowledge of the omitted facts); Frank, 3. F.3d at 1366 (plaintiffs’ motion to amend denied where plaintiffs conceded that their failure to name a defendant prior to the proposed amendment was a strategic decision); Fed. Ins. Co. v. Gates Learjet Corp., 823 F.2d 383, 387 (10th Cir. 1987) (defendant’s motion to amend was denied where he possessed documents from which he could have discovered and asserted a statute of limitations defense at the time the lawsuit was filed).
In this case, though Defendants argue that Plaintiffs were aware of the facts underlying the amendments at the time the lawsuit was filed, they have not identified any specific fact in the proposed SAC of which the Plaintiffs were, or should have been, aware, prior to filing the FAC. With the exception of allegations regarding the Plaintiffs named in the FAC, the Court can similarly find no indication that Plaintiffs had actual knowledge of any of the facts that they allege for the first time in the SAC. Indeed, the allegation in the SAC that “[a]fter the filing of this lawsuit, Tulsa County stopped using Aberdeen, Inc.’s services for collection of Tulsa County court debt,” was by necessity not known to Plaintiffs prior to filing their complaint. Further, in the case of the allegations regarding the Plaintiffs named in the FAC , the additional allegations appear to add precision to existing allegations, rather than to add new allegations of which they had actual knowledge prior to filing the SAC.
Moreover, the Court can find no facts alleged in the SAC that are both of obvious importance to Plaintiffs and not difficult to learn. For example, many of Plaintiffs’ proposed
7

amendments supply more precision and clarity regarding Plaintiffs’ allegations as to each Defendant’s unlawful conduct. While each Defendant’s alleged role in the unlawful activity may be of obvious importance, the precise details of each Defendant’s actions are nowhere near as easily discoverable as the facts that have served as the basis for denying motions to amend, such as the identity of a plaintiff’s employer, or the existence of a statute of limitations defense. See, e,g., Muller, 408 F. App’x at 197 (plaintiff’s motion to amend was denied where he changed his allegations as to the identity of his employer in response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, as plaintiff knew or should have known who his employer was); Fed. Ins. Co., 823 F.2d at 387 (defendant’s motion to amend was denied where he possessed documents from which he could have discovered and asserted a statute of limitations defense at the time the lawsuit was filed). Accordingly, the facts alleged in Plaintiffs’ SAC are not facts that Plaintiffs knew, or should have known, at the time they filed the FAC.
Plaintiffs have also presented an adequate explanation for filing their Motion to Amend at this time. Plaintiffs state that “[t]he proposed amendments here are made in good faith in direct response to Defendants’ motions to dismiss in order to bolster Plaintiff’s claims and to streamline the issues for presentation to the Court.” (Doc. 202.) Though Plaintiffs cannot amend their Complaint as a matter of course, as they have already done so once, Plaintiff’s proposed amendments fall within the policy of judicial economy that supports allowing a plaintiff to amend in response to a motion to dismiss. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15 Comm. Notes on Rules—2009 Amendment (allowing a plaintiff to amend his complaint in response to a motion to dismiss “may avoid the need to decide the motion or reduce the number of issues to be decided, and will expedite determination of issues that otherwise might be raised seriatim.”). Plaintiffs’ SAC limits which of their claims are brought against each Defendant, offers greater clarity on their factual allegations
8

and the legal substance of their claims, and adds an additional Plaintiff in response to Defendants’ arguments regarding the statute of limitations. Permitting these amendments will allow the Court to decide future motions on substantive legal issues, rather than on procedural issues. See Travelers Indem. Co. v. United States, 382 F.2d 103 (10th Cir. 1967) (pleading is not a game of skill and its purpose is to facilitate a decision on the merits). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ delay in filing the proposed SAC is not undue.
Further, allowing Plaintiffs to file their SAC will not make their allegations a “moving target,” as some Defendants contend. (Doc. 204, 205, and 208.) It is common, and indeed, contemplated by the Rules that a plaintiff may amend his complaint in response to a motion to dismiss. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15 Comm. Notes on Rules—2009 Amendment. In this case, the proposed SAC does not change Plaintiffs’ theory of the case, but rather alleges additional facts that address the issues raised in Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Accordingly, rather than making Plaintiffs’ allegations a “moving target,” the SAC refines the allegations and will allow the Court to decide future motions based on substantive issues. See Travelers Indem. Co., 382 F.2d 103.
Finally, this amendment will not lay the groundwork for Plaintiffs to make serial amendments to prevent a decision on the merits, because the policy reasons in the Committee Notes on Rule 15 that support amendment in this case will not apply equally to future responsive pleadings. For example, the right to amend as a matter of course after service of a responsive pleading is not cumulative, and so the policy cannot apply with equal force to future amendments. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15 Comm. Notes on Rules—2009 Amendment. Moreover, serial amendments to prevent a decision on the merits would allow Defendants to put forward facts showing undue delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith or dilatory motive, failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or futility of amendment.
9

B. Undue Prejudice to the Opposing Party Courts typically find prejudice when the proposed amendment will unfairly affect the opposing party “in terms of preparing their defense to the amendment.” Minter, 451 F.3d at 1208. This most often occurs when the amended claims arise out of a different subject matter than what was set forth in the original complaint and raises significant new factual issues. Id. Prejudice is the most important factor in deciding a motion to amend the pleadings. Id., at 1207. In this case, Defendants will not be prejudiced by Plaintiffs’ filing the SAC. While the SAC alleges some new facts, restyles one claim, and adds a new Plaintiff, there is significant overlap in the legal and factual material of both the FAC and SAC, which limits potential prejudice from the SAC. See Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1208 (10th Cir. 2006) (finding no prejudice where there was significant overlap in the factual underpinnings and defenses of the two complaints). Additionally, because much of the SAC attempts to describe, with more precision, the role of each Defendant in the alleged unlawful activity, the relevant witnesses and documents are within Defendants’ control, further limiting prejudice. See Velocity Press v. Key Bank, N.A., 570 F. App’x 783, 788 (10th Cir. 2014) (finding no prejudice where relevant witnesses and documents were within defendants’ control). Finally, because the amendment would take place before the parties have commenced discovery and before the Court has ruled on any motions, Defendants will not be prejudiced in their ability to conduct discovery on all of Plaintiffs’ legal claims and factual allegations, nor their ability to present every relevant argument to the Court. Moreover, though several Defendants have asserted that allowing Plaintiffs to file the SAC would result in prejudice, the only prejudice any Defendant has alleged is that Defendants will likely be required to file an additional Motion to Dismiss, and that this task will be timeconsuming, as the SAC is quite lengthy. (Docs. 204, 205, 207, and 208.) While Defendants may
10

be required to engage in additional research in response to the SAC or draft an additional motion to dismiss, this additional work does not, by itself, constitute prejudice. Defendants are not prejudiced simply because they must respond to Plaintiffs’ amendments, particularly because, as discussed supra, III. A, the Rules contemplate Plaintiffs amending their complaint in response to motions to dismiss. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15 Comm. Notes on Rules—2009 Amendment; Minter, 451 F.3d at 1208; Velocity Bank, 570 F. App’x at 788. Defendants’ argument is especially unpersuasive in this case because, with one exception, the pending motions to dismiss are the first motions to dismiss filed by the parties in this litigation, further limiting potential prejudice.2 Accordingly, the SAC would not unduly prejudice Defendants.
C. Bad Faith or Dilatory Motive Bad faith may be inferred if the proposed amendment contradicts the original pleading, such that the two cannot be reconciled, or if the party seeks leave to amend for an improper purpose. See Rivera v. Volvo Cars of N. Am., LLC., No. 13-00397 KG/KBM, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192620, at *11 (D. N.M. Feb. 9, 2015); Colo. Civ. Rights Comm’n v. 1950 Logan Condos. Condo. Ass’n, No. 13-cv-02583-PAB-MJW, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181195, at *4 (D. Colo. Dec. 30, 2013); see also Ayon v. Gourley, No. 98-1305, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 14199, *9-10 (10th Cir. 1999). In this case, Defendants have identified no portion of the SAC that contradicts the FAC, and the Court has found none. Similarly, while Defendants Aberdeen Enterprizes, Jim Shofner, and Rob Shofner have alleged that Plaintiffs seek this amendment for the improper purpose of delay, the facts they cite in support of this allegation are equally consistent with Plaintiffs, in good faith, seeking to refine their factual allegations and legal claims. These Defendants argue that Plaintiffs presented their
2 Aberdeen Enterprizes II has filed two Motions to Dismiss. (Docs. 8 and 208.)
11

prior pleadings with the goal of discerning what factual and legal allegations would draw objection, and now seek “a mulligan.” (Doc. 208.) However, these facts are not sufficient to demonstrate an improper purpose of delay—they are equally consistent with the Rules’ policy to allow amendment in response to a motion to dismiss, as it “may avoid the need to decide the motion or reduce the number of issues to be decided, and will expedite determination of issues that might otherwise be raised seriatim.” See FED. R. CIV. P. 15 Comm. Notes on Rules—2009 Amendment. As discussed supra, III.A., merely seeking to amend in response to a motion to dismiss does not in itself demonstrate bad faith. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ proposed SAC does not demonstrate bad faith or dilatory motive.
D. Failure to Cure Deficiencies by Amendments Previously Allowed Defendants contend that leave to amend should not be granted because Plaintiffs have amended their complaint once before, and failed to include the factual refinements, additional Plaintiff, and claim restyling that they have included in the SAC. (Doc. 205, 207, and 208.) This argument is not persuasive. As discussed supra, III. A, Plaintiffs have presented adequate reason for filing their Motion to Amend at this time, and the Court has before it no compelling evidence that Plaintiffs should have filed their Motion to Amend earlier, or should have included the amendments contained in the SAC in the FAC. Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs have not cured deficiencies by amendments previously allowed. E. Futility of Amendment A proposed amendment is futile if the pleading, as amended, would be subject to dismissal for any reason. See Watson ex. rel. Watson v. Beckel, 242 F.3d 1237, 1239-40 (10th Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted). When a court denies a motion to amend based on futility, that court has frequently already ruled on a dispositive motion, either in a separate order or in conjunction
12

with the motion to amend. See, e.g., Bradshaw v. Lappin, 484 F. App’x 217, 221 (10th Cir. 2012) (motion to amend denied where it reasserted claims that had been dismissed and so was futile); Jefferson County Sch. Dist. No. R-1 v. Moody’s Investor’s Servs., 175 F.3d 848, 850 (10th Cir. 1999) (granting motion to dismiss and denying motion to amend because both the original and amended complaint were based on an article protected by the first amendment); Bauchman v. West High Sch., 132 F.3d 541, 559 (10th Cir. 1997) (motion to amend denied where claims with no material differences had already been dismissed); Mountain View Pharmacy v. Abbott Laboratories, 630 F.2d 1383, 1389 (10th Cir. 1980) (granting a motion to dismiss and denying in part a motion to amend where “both complaints were equally devoid of any factual allegations which would support the claims of these plaintiffs against these particular defendants.”).
In this case, the court has yet to rule on any dispositive motions. Accordingly, the Court has not yet determined whether the FAC is subject to dismissal, and so cannot determine based exclusively on the proposed SAC whether the SAC is subject to dismissal. At the very least, the SAC is not so obviously deficient that the Court can find that it would be subject to dismissal without the aid of the Parties’ briefing on this subject.
Further, the Court declines to consider Defendants’ motions to dismiss in conjunction with Plaintiffs’ motion to amend, as the facts in this case counsel against such a process. Considering the motions to dismiss and the motion to amend together would require the Court to determine whether any dismissed claims were dismissed for defects cured in the proposed SAC. The briefing on the present motions to dismiss is extensive, and if the Court considered the Motions to Dismiss and the Motion to Amend together, the Court would be required to determine whether the SAC cured the defects of the FAC without the benefit of the same extensive briefing. Due to the
13

complex nature of both Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendants’ defenses, the Court will require briefing to determine whether the SAC is subject to dismissal.
Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs restyling their claim of “civil extortion” as “duress” does not save this claim, as duress is not an independent tort. (Doc. 208.) This too does not render the proposed SAC futile. Economic duress is not an independent tort under Oklahoma law, and cannot support the award of punitive damages. See Cimarron Pipeline Constr. Inc. ex. rel. All Other Insurers Who Write Comp. Ins. v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Co., 1993 OK 22, 848 P.2d 1161, 1162 (Okla. 1993). However, economic duress is an equitable doctrine under contract law, and can support a claim for avoiding or rescinding a contract based on economic duress, as well as for compensatory damages arising out of that contract. Id. at 1165-66. Plaintiffs’ proposed SAC includes compensatory damages in its Prayer for Relief. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claim of duress is not subject to dismissal without the benefit of briefing. However, Defendants may raise their objections to this, or any, claim in any subsequent motions to dismiss.
F. Costs The Court has the discretion to impose “reasonable conditions” on a grant of leave to amend, such as requiring Plaintiffs to pay Defendants’ additional discovery costs and attorney’s fees. See Duran v. N.M. DOL, 42 F. App’x 326, 327-28 (10th Cir. 2002)(unpublished); Mountain View Pharmacy v. Abbott Laboratories, 630 F.2d 1383, 1386 (10th Cir. 1980). When deciding whether to impose any conditions on a party’s leave to amend, several of the same factors that are relevant to determining whether to grant leave to amend initially may be considered. 12 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1486 (2014), citing Mountain View Pharmacy, 630 F.2d at 1386.
14

In this case, though it would be within the Court’s discretion to impose conditions such as the award of costs, the same factors that weigh in favor of granting the Motion to Amend also weigh against requiring Plaintiffs to pay Defendants’ additional discovery costs and attorney’s fees. In this case, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Amend two months after Defendants’ filed their Motions to Dismiss, and in direct response to those motions. Accordingly, rather than causing economic prejudice to Defendants, the proposed SAC will conserve resources and help the Court and the parties reach a decision on substantive issues. See Travelers Indem. Co. v. United States, 382 F.2d 103 (10th Cir. 1967) (pleading is not a game of skill and its purpose is to facilitate a decision on the merits). Additionally, discovery and other pretrial procedures have not begun in this case, so Defendants will not have to undergo additional discovery. Indeed, it appears that Defendants’ only potential additional costs will be to prepare additional Motions to Dismiss. This is not sufficient to justify awarding discovery costs and attorney’s fees. See Duran, 41 F. App’x at 328-29 (upholding a condition that plaintiff pay additional discovery costs on the court’s grant of leave to amend where the defendant would have been required to engage in additional discovery and respond to otherwise-barred claims). Accordingly, the Court will not require Plaintiffs to pay Defendants’ additional discovery costs and attorney’s fees. IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend is GRANTED. Plaintiffs may file their SAC within five (5) days of this order being entered.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend (Doc. 202) is GRANTED. Further, because Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss refer to the FAC, which is no longer the operative complaint, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deny Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss as Moot (Doc. 202) is GRANTED.
15

Defendant P.D. Taylor’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in Official Capacity (Doc. 95) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Defendant P.D. Taylor’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in Individual Capacity (Doc. 99) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Defendants’ Terrell S. Crosson’s, Doug Drummond’s, Dawn Moody’s, and William J. Musseman Jr.’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 169) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Defendant Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc. Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 175) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Defendants Jim D. Shofner’s and Ron Shofner’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 176) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Defendants the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers’s, Roger County Clerk Kim Henry’s, and Rogers County Sheriff Scott Walton’s (Doc. 177) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Defendants Roger County Clerk Kim Henry’s and Rogers County Sheriff Scott Walton’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 178) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Defendant Oklahoma Sheriffs’ Association’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 179) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Defendant Darlene Bailey’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 180) is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendants Darlene Bailey’s, the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa’s, Don Newberry’s and Vic Regalado’s Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 181) is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendant Don Newberry’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 182) is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendant Vic Regalado’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 183) is DENIED AS MOOT.
16

Defendants Tony Almaguer’s, Darren Atha’s, Dennis Banther’s, Matt Boley’s, Mike Booth’s, Bret Bowling’s, Rudy Briggs, Jr.’s, Chris Bryant’s, Kevin Clardy’s, Danny Cryer’s, Chris Elliott’s, Norman Fisher’s, Jeremy Floyd’s, Todd Gibson’s, Marty Grisham’s, Sandy Hadley’s, R.B. Hauf’s, Tony Head’s, B.J. Hedgecock’s, Jesse James’s, Bryan Jump’s, Steve Kelley’s, Larry Lane’s, Kevin Ledbetter’s, Roger Levick’s, Marcia Maxwell’s, Thomas McClendon’s, Kevin Mitchell’s, Harlan Moore’s, Jerry Niles’s, Ruben Parker, Jr.’s, Mike Reed’s, Roger Reeve’s, Eddy Rice’s, Jason Ritchie’s, Darrin Rodgers’s, Clay Sander’s, Rob Seale’s, Rick Silver’s, Jon Smith’s, Shannon Smith’s, Scott Sterling’s, Eddie Virden’s, Rick Wallace’s, Mike Waters’s, Jim Weir’s, Chris West’s, Bobby Whittington’s, Jeremie Wilson’s, Heath Winfrey’s, and Steven Worley’s Motions to Dismiss in their Official Capacity (Doc. 184) and in their Individual Capacities (Doc. 185) are DENIED AS MOOT.
DATED THIS 20th day of September, 2018. __________________________________________ TERENCE C. KERN United States District Judge
17

 
 Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 1 of 102

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

1) CARLY GRAFF;

)

2) RANDY FRAZIER;

)

3) DAVID SMITH;

)

4) KENDALLIA KILLMAN;

)

5) LINDA MEACHUM;

)

6) CHRISTOPHER CHOATE;

)

7) IRA LEE WILKINS; and

)

8) MELANIE HOLMES

)

)

on behalf of themselves and all others

)

similarly situated.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

1) ABERDEEN ENTERPRIZES II, INC.; )

2) JIM D. SHOFNER; 3) ROB SHOFNER; 4) OKLAHOMA SHERIFFS’

) ) ) )

ASSOCIATION;

)

5) THE BOARD OF COUNTY

)

COMMISSIONERS OF THE

)

COUNTY OF TULSA;

)

6) THE BOARD OF COUNTY

)

COMMISSIONERS OF THE

)

COUNTY OF ROGERS;

)

7) VIC REGALADO, SHERIFF OF

)

TULSA COUNTY;

)

8) SCOTT WALTON, SHERIFF OF ROGERS COUNTY;

) ) )

9) JASON RITCHIE, SHERIFF OF

)

ADAIR COUNTY;

)

10) RICK WALLACE, SHERIFF OF

)

ALFALFA COUNTY;

)

11) TONY HEAD, SHERIFF OF ATOKA )

COUNTY;

)

12) RUBEN PARKER, JR., SHERIFF OF )

BEAVER COUNTY;

)

13) TONY ALMAGUER, SHERIFF OF

)

BLAINE COUNTY; 14) CHRIS WEST, SHERIFF OF
CANADIAN COUNTY;

) ) ) )

15) CHRIS BRYANT, SHERIFF OF

)

1

Case No. 4:17-CV-606-CVE-JFJ (Amended Complaint - Class Action) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 2 of 102

CARTER COUNTY;

)

16) NORMAN FISHER, SHERIFF OF

)

CHEROKEE COUNTY;

)

17) TODD GIBSON, SHERIFF OF

)

CLEVELAND COUNTY; 18) BRYAN JUMP, SHERIFF OF COAL
COUNTY;

) ) ) )

19) HEATH WINFREY, SHERIFF OF

)

CRAIG COUNTY;

)

20) BRET BOWLING, SHERIFF OF

)

CREEK COUNTY;

)

21) HARLAN MOORE, SHERIFF OF

)

DELAWARE COUNTY;

)

22) CLAY SANDER, SHERIFF OF

)

DEWEY COUNTY;

)

23) JERRY NILES, SHERIFF OF

)

GARFIELD COUNTY; 24) JIM WEIR, SHERIFF OF GRADY
COUNTY;

) ) ) )

25) SCOTT STERLING, SHERIFF OF

)

GRANT COUNTY;THOMAS

)

MCCLENDON, SHERIFF OF

)

HARPER COUNTY;

)

26) MARCIA MAXWELL, SHERIFF OF )

HUGHES COUNTY;

)

27) ROGER LEVICK, SHERIFF OF

)

JACKSON COUNTY;

)

28) JEREMIE WILSON, SHERIFF OF JEFFERSON COUNTY;
29) JON SMITH, SHERIFF OF

) ) ) )

JOHNSTON COUNTY;

)

30) STEVE KELLEY, SHERIFF OF KAY )

COUNTY;

)

31) DENNIS BANTHER, SHERIFF OF

)

KINGFISHER COUNTY;

)

32) JESSE JAMES, SHERIFF OF

)

LATIMER COUNTY;

)

33) ROB SEALE, SHERIFF OF

)

LeFLORE COUNTY;

)

34) MARTY GRISHAM, SHERIFF OF LOVE COUNTY;
35) DANNY CRYER, SHERIFF OF

) ) ) )

MARSHALL COUNTY;

)

36) MIKE REED, SHERIFF OF MAYES )

COUNTY;

)

37) KEVIN CLARDY, SHERIFF OF

)

)

2

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 3 of 102

McCURTAIN COUNTY;

)

38) KEVIN LEDBETTER, SHERIFF OF )

MCINTOSH COUNTY;

)

39) DARRIN RODGERS, SHERIFF OF

)

MURRAY COUNTY; 40) SANDY HADLEY, SHERIFF OF
NOWATA COUNTY;

) ) ) )

41) STEVEN WORLEY, SHERIFF OF

)

OKFUSKEE COUNTY;

)

42) P.D. TAYLOR, SHERIFF OF

)

OKLAHOMA COUNTY;

)

43) EDDY RICE, SHERIFF OF

)

OKMULGEE COUNTY;

)

44) EDDIE VIRDEN, SHERIFF OF

)

OSAGE COUNTY;

)

45) JEREMY FLOYD, SHERIFF OF

)

OTTAWA COUNTY; 46) MIKE WATERS, SHERIFF OF
PAWNEE COUNTY;

) ) ) )

47) R.B. HAUF, SHERIFF OF PAYNE

)

COUNTY;

)

48) MIKE BOOTH, SHERIFF OF

)

POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY;

)

49) B.J. HEDGECOCK, SHERIFF OF

)

PUSHMATAHA COUNTY;

)

50) DARREN ATHA, SHERIFF OF

)

ROGER MILLS COUNTY;

)

51) SHANNON SMITH, SHERIFF OF SEMINOLE COUNTY;
52) LARRY LANE, SHERIFF OF

) ) ) )

SEQUOYAH COUNTY;

)

53) MATT BOLEY, SHERIFF OF TEXAS )

COUNTY;

)

54) BOBBY WHITTINGTON, SHERIFF )

OF TILLMAN COUNTY;

)

55) CHRIS ELLIOT, SHERIFF OF

)

WAGONER COUNTY;

)

56) RICK SILVER, SHERIFF OF

)

WASHINGTON COUNTY;

)

57) ROGER REEVE, SHERIFF OF WASHITA COUNTY;
58) RUDY BRIGGS, JR., SHERIFF OF

) ) ) )

WOODS COUNTY;

)

59) KEVIN MITCHELL, SHERIFF OF

)

WOODWARD COUNTY

)

60) JUDGE DAWN MOODY;

)

)

3

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 4 of 102

61) JUDGE DOUG DRUMMOND;

)

62) JUDGE WILLIAM J. MUSSEMAN, )

JR.;

)

63) DON NEWBERRY, TULSA COUNTY )

COURT CLERK; 64) DARLENE BAILEY, TULSA
COUNTY COST ADMINISTRATOR;

) ) ) )

65) JUDGE TERRELL S. CROSSON; and )

66) KIM HENRY, ROGERS COUNTY

)

COURT CLERK;

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

1. This lawsuit challenges an unlawful and extortionate court debt collection scheme

perpetrated by Defendants Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc. (“Aberdeen, Inc.”), the Oklahoma

Sheriffs’ Association (the “Sheriffs’ Association”), and the Sheriffs of 54 counties1 across

Oklahoma. This lawsuit also challenges the unconstitutional practices that enable this scheme

and pervade Oklahoma’s criminal legal system, including the practices of the Judges, Cost

Administrators2, and Court Clerks of the Rogers and Tulsa County District Courts, who assess

court debts3 in criminal and traffic cases that Aberdeen, Inc. later collects, and who request and

issue debt-collection arrest warrants without regard to a debtor’s ability to pay and on the basis

1 For a list of all Sheriff Defendants, see infra note 6. 2 In Rogers County, there is no separate cost administration office; the duties of the cost administrator are handled by the court clerk. 3 “Court debts” are made up of fines, fees, and costs arising out of a criminal case, including fees supporting retirement funds, judicial expenses, prosecutors, jailors, probation supervision, public defenders, a wide variety of civil services unrelated to criminal cases, and other entities. After a criminal case, any debts owed become collectible in the same way as any other civil judgment under Oklahoma law. The difference between “fees” and “costs” imposed on a person convicted of a criminal offense is not clear under Oklahoma law. Among stakeholders in the Oklahoma criminal legal system, “fees” are generally understood to refer to payments known at the time of a guilty plea, while “costs” are generally understood to refer to payments unknown at the time of a guilty plea, and subsequently determined and imposed by the court cost administrator or court clerk’s office. For the purpose of this lawsuit, the term “court debt” refers to all of the legal financial obligations that are owed as the result of a criminal or traffic conviction, including those that courts and court clerks subsequently assess.
4

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 5 of 102
of unsworn statements. 2. Plaintiffs are impoverished individuals who have been saddled with court debts
without any inquiry into their ability to pay and who have had debt-collection arrest warrants sought and issued against them for no reason other than that they are too poor to pay these court debts. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ repeated pleas of financial hardship, it is the practice of Aberdeen, Inc. to repeatedly threaten Plaintiffs, and other impoverished court debtors who make up the proposed class, to make payments that they cannot afford; to coerce them with threats of arrest if they do not pay; and, with the assistance of the Defendant Judges who issue the arrest warrants sought by Aberdeen, Inc. and the Defendant Sheriffs who execute them, to have Plaintiffs actually arrested and detained solely for nonpayment. The unflagging aim of this enterprise is to squeeze as much money out of impoverished court debtors as possible.
3. Through these extortionate practices, Aberdeen, Inc. has collected—and all Defendants have reaped the benefits of—tens of millions of dollars in payments from the poorest individuals in Oklahoma. This money has provided millions of dollars to Aberdeen, Inc., millions of dollars to the Sheriffs’ Association, and tens of millions of dollars to the Oklahoma court system to pay for judicial salaries and other essential expenses of the district courts and court clerks’ offices.
4. To generate these payments, Defendants have subjected Plaintiffs and proposed class members to arrest, prolonged detention, and illegal threats. Plaintiffs and proposed class members have been separated from their families and friends; lost their jobs and drivers’ licenses; and sacrificed the basic necessities of life, including groceries, clothing, and shelter as a result of Defendants’ conduct.
5. Aberdeen, Inc. collects court debts pursuant to a contract it entered into with the
5

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 6 of 102
Sheriffs’ Association, acting in its capacity as the agent of the 54 Sheriff Defendants. The contract outsources the function of collecting court debt to Aberdeen, Inc., a private, for-profit company. Under this scheme, when a person does not pay her court debt within a certain amount of time, the court clerk4 automatically seeks a warrant for that person’s arrest, based solely on the nonpayment. Judges routinely sign these debt-collection arrest warrants. When a judge signs a debt-collection arrest warrant for an individual with a case arising in the Defendant Sheriffs’ counties, the court clerk has discretion under the contract to transfer the case to Aberdeen, Inc. to take over the collection process, and routinely does so. Under an Oklahoma law governing court debts (enacted as a result of lobbying by the Sheriffs’ Association), a 30-percent penalty surcharge is added to the amount owed when a court clerk transfers a case to the private company for collection. Aberdeen, Inc. and the Sheriffs’ Association then retain a portion of the money Aberdeen, Inc. collects, up to an amount equal to the 30-percent penalty. The entire process of seeking arrest warrants, issuing arrest warrants, transferring the case to Aberdeen, Inc., and adding a 30-percent penalty surcharge occurs without any inquiry into the individual’s ability to pay.
6. There are currently tens of thousands of cases in Oklahoma with outstanding debtcollection arrest warrants. As of February 2017, in Tulsa County alone, there were over 22,000 active arrest warrants based solely on alleged nonpayment. This is a direct result of Oklahoma’s ever-increasing reliance on the people who are charged with traffic violations or criminal offenses to fund the court system and other municipal and state services. Each case, whether concerning a traffic ticket, a misdemeanor, or a felony, includes over 10 separate fees on top of the fine that is
4 In certain counties, a “cost administrator” sitting within the court clerk’s office handles the day-to-day responsibilities of overseeing debt collections. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint refers to “court clerks” when describing this conduct except where the actions of named defendants are involved.
6

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 7 of 102
the only payment imposed for the purpose of punishing a violation of the law. These fees— which range from a generic “court cost” assessment to a “Law Library” fee to an “Oklahoma Court Information System” fee to, in some cases, a fee that helps support trauma centers at hospitals and much more—total in the hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars per case. The fees are imposed per case, so if the District Attorney chooses to charge two or more offenses in separate cases, the court debts that the person owes multiply accordingly.
7. Cases involving indigent debtors who cannot pay the assortment of fees the courts impose inevitably result in court clerks and cost administrators seeking and judges issuing debtcollection arrest warrants, which court clerks then routinely exercise their discretion to transfer to Aberdeen, Inc.’s control. Once Aberdeen, Inc. takes over, regardless of an individual debtor’s circumstances, the company leverages the threat of an active arrest warrant to coerce payment. Aberdeen, Inc. informs debtors that it can have their outstanding arrest warrants removed if they pay enough money to Aberdeen, Inc. Specifically, the company requires payment at the outset of a lump sum that it determines arbitrarily, regularly in the hundreds of dollars, before it will notify the court to lift the arrest warrant. If an individual explains that she is too poor to pay the lump sum and offers to make periodic payments instead, Aberdeen, Inc. refuses, as a matter of policy, to accept a lesser amount. Aberdeen, Inc. does so because the threat of living under the shadow of an arrest warrant coerces individuals owing debt to sacrifice basic necessities, to beg others for money, and to divert money from means-tested disability payments. When seeking to collect payment, Aberdeen, Inc. has trained its employees through phone call scripts to threaten debtors by emphasizing the damaging consequences of arrest, including separation from children and other family, as well as loss of employment. If Aberdeen, Inc. has access to the debtor’s family or friends, it calls them to demand payment and threaten the harmful consequences of their
7

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 8 of 102
loved one’s arrest. 8. Those who manage to cobble together money to pay the initial lump sum receive
only temporary relief, as Aberdeen, Inc. then requires monthly payments that routinely exceed what the individual can afford. The company continues its pattern of threatening phone calls, now coupled with threats of new arrest warrants, to extract payment. Aberdeen, Inc. threatens that it will seek the debtor’s arrest any time the debtor ceases to make payments in the frequency or amount determined by Aberdeen, Inc.
9. Numerous actors in Oklahoma’s criminal legal system enable Aberdeen, Inc.’s extortionate scheme. Defendant Judges, Defendant Cost Administrator, and Defendant Court Clerks of the Rogers and Tulsa County District Courts (as well as other counties’ judges, court clerks, and cost administrators not named as defendants) participate in the enterprise at critical stages. First, they set in motion the cycle of debt that drives individuals to Aberdeen, Inc. by assessing exorbitant court debts and establishing payment plans without inquiring into individuals’ ability to pay. When individuals fall behind, court clerks and cost administrators seek and judges issue arrest warrants based solely on non-payment. Court clerks then routinely exercise their discretion to transfer the cases to Aberdeen, Inc., which contacts debtors and uses the active arrest warrants as leverage for obtaining payments.5 After transfer of collection to Aberdeen, Inc., the other Defendants knowingly acquiesce in Aberdeen, Inc.’s practice of demanding an arbitrary lump sum to lift an arrest warrant. The Defendant Court Clerks and Tulsa Cost Administrator assist Aberdeen, Inc. with obtaining new debt-collection arrest warrants at Aberdeen, Inc.’s request, without sworn oaths or affirmations of any facts, and without inquiry
5 After the filing of this lawsuit, Tulsa County stopped using Aberdeen, Inc.’s services for collection of Tulsa County court debt. The subsequent allegations reflect practices throughout the time period preceding the filing of the First Amended Complaint. Allegations in this complaint regarding Tulsa County’s use of Aberdeen, Inc. remain in the present tense to signify the state of affairs at the time the previous complaint was filed.
8

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 9 of 102
into the reason for nonpayment or ability to pay. Defendant Judges routinely issue such warrants despite these constitutional defects, and without any further inquiry.
10. The Sheriff Defendants enforce Aberdeen, Inc.’s extortionate methods by routinely arresting and jailing individuals pursuant to these debt-collection arrest warrants that are based solely on nonpayment.6 When a debtor is jailed for nonpayment, the Sheriff Defendants will not release her unless she pays a fixed sum payment to get out of jail. In Tulsa County and Rogers County, release on “bond” or “bail” is not an option, as any money paid is directly applied to the debt allegedly owed, not used to secure appearance at a future court date. Sheriffs in numerous counties detain individuals who cannot pay in jail for days before they are allowed to see a judge—again, without ever making an inquiry into ability to pay—while allowing those able to pay to go free. In some counties, judges, including the Rogers County Judge, later order individuals to remain in jail and “sit out” their debt if they cannot make a payment at the time they are eventually brought to court. Neither sheriffs nor judges (nor anyone else) provide any of the inquiries, findings, or procedural safeguards required by Supreme Court precedent prior to jailing a person for nonpayment.
11. At each stage of this process, more fees are tacked on to the individual’s court debts. In addition to the 30-percent penalty surcharge that is added when a case is transferred to Aberdeen, Inc., there is a fee for each arrest warrant; a fee for executing an arrest warrant; and a daily fee for being confined in jail, just to name a few. Thus, a large portion of debts allegedly owed by debtors are surcharges that Defendants impose upon debtors to pay for their own unconstitutional treatment. The court debt of the individual, who was too poor to pay in the first
6 Allegations against the Sheriff Defendants and pertaining to detention do not apply to the Sheriffs of Cherokee, McCurtain, Okmulgee, Pottawatomie, and Tillman Counties. These counties have shifted responsibility for county jails to a “jail trust authority.”
9

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 10 of 102
place, thus inflates with each new warrant for nonpayment. Aberdeen, Inc. then threatens and the Defendant Sheriffs jail debtors on arrest warrants sought by Aberdeen, Inc., court clerks, and cost administrators when debtors cannot pay these surcharges, creating a vicious cycle of mounting debt and illegal treatment.
12. At the root of this extortionate scheme is a criminal legal system that depends on revenue collected from the poor. The salaries and retirement benefits of all judges in Oklahoma are paid for, in significant part, by revenue from these debts. In addition, other revenue from court debts funds the daily operational budgets of district courts throughout Oklahoma. In 2017 alone, the Tulsa District Court used $7,273,828 and the Rogers District Court used $664,211.41 in revenue from fines, fees, forfeitures, and costs7 to pay for basic expenses, such as courthouse maintenance, photocopying equipment, general office supplies, postage, juror expenses, and, in Rogers County, salaries and benefits for employees of the clerk’s office. And still other revenue is allocated to support the Sheriffs’ activities. As a result of this financial dependency and entanglement, judges, court personnel, and sheriffs—the people responsible for assessing fines and fees, setting payment plans, requesting and issuing arrest warrants, executing arrest warrants, and detaining debtors—harbor a powerful financial incentive to violate the Constitution rather than to do justice.
13. Decades ago, the Supreme Court condemned practices like these and declared them unconstitutional. It has long been a bedrock principle of American law that an individual cannot be jailed solely because she is too poor to pay court debts. Prior to jailing a person and depriving her of her fundamental right to bodily liberty, the government must make specific
7 In 2017, Rogers County collected a total of $1,963,629 in fines, fees, forfeitures, and costs, of which $1,247,065.84, or 64 percent, came from criminal and traffic cases. The same year, Tulsa County collected a total of $12,100,069.15, of which $5,515,962, or 46 percent, came from criminal and traffic cases.
10

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 11 of 102
findings and provide rigorous procedural safeguards. 14. Congress, likewise, provided a mechanism to stop this type of wide-ranging
scheme of unlawful extortion and compensate its victims when it enacted the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968). The practices challenged in this lawsuit have no place in our society.
15. The Named Plaintiffs are all people who are suffering irreparable harm as a result of Defendants’ illegal debt-collection practices. On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs seek in this action, brought under RICO, the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Oklahoma law, declaratory relief and an injunction against the violations of their basic rights at each stage of the debt-collection process, compensation for the injuries they have suffered, and punitive damages to deter similar misconduct in the future.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 16. This is a civil rights action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (RICO), 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq., and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367. 17. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
PARTIES 18. Plaintiff Carly Graff is a 40-year-old resident of Rogers County. She has two children she struggles to provide for. Ms. Graff depends on public assistance to support herself and her daughters. Ms. Graff frequently cannot afford groceries and is currently at risk of having her electricity cut off because she cannot afford to pay the electricity bill. Ms. Graff was unable to pay the fines and fees assessed for a single traffic ticket. As a result, the Rogers Court Clerk sought and the Rogers County Judge issued a warrant for her arrest, and the Rogers Court Clerk
11

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 12 of 102
assessed more fees and transferred her case to Aberdeen, Inc. Ms. Graff now lives in constant fear of arrest and does not leave her home unless necessary to care for her children because she is so afraid of being taken to jail for nonpayment. If Ms. Graff is arrested, she will not be able to pay the $435.83 required to secure her release from the Rogers County jail.
19. Plaintiff Randy Frazier is a 59-year-old resident of Tulsa County, who, in November 2015, suffered a mini-stroke. He has been unable to work since then, and he receives social security disability payments to pay for the basic necessities of life. Mr. Frazier has multiple cases in which he has been unable to pay his court debt because of his poverty. Because of his nonpayment, the Tulsa Court Clerk and Cost Administrator sought, and a Tulsa County judge issued, debt-collection arrest warrants in each case, and assessed a separate $80 warrant fee for each case. The Tulsa Clerk and Tulsa Cost Administrator transferred the cases to Aberdeen, Inc., and assessed a 30-percent penalty surcharge. Mr. Frazier now owes more than $10,000. Aberdeen, Inc. regularly threatens him with arrest and demands payments that he cannot afford. If Mr. Frazier is arrested, he will not be able to pay the $250 required to secure his release from the Tulsa County jail.
20. Plaintiff David Smith is a 32-year-old resident of Tulsa, Oklahoma. He lives with his girlfriend and her three children. He also has a son from a previous relationship. Mr. Smith is indigent and struggles to support himself and his family. Mr. Smith owes court debt in two cases, both of which have been transferred to Aberdeen, Inc. for collection by the Tulsa Clerk and Cost Administrator. Aberdeen, Inc. has threatened Mr. Smith with arrest whenever he has missed payments. Out of fear of arrest, Mr. Smith has regularly paid Aberdeen, Inc., even at the expense of obtaining basic necessities. Within the past year, Mr. Smith was coerced by threats of arrest to pay money to Aberdeen, Inc. that he otherwise would have paid in child support, causing him to
12

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 13 of 102
be denied visitation with his son. Mr. Smith has experienced stress and anxiety because of Aberdeen, Inc.’s threats of arrest. He fears for himself and for his family, which he worries will not be able to support itself if he is in jail.
21. Plaintiff Linda Meachum is a 58-year-old resident of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Ms. Meachum is indigent. Her only income is $194 per month in food stamps and $50 per month for helping an elderly neighbor with laundry and cooking. She is unable to do more rigorous work because of medical problems resulting from being a survivor of domestic violence. In 2012, the Tulsa Clerk transferred court debt from Ms. Meachum’s 2007 Tulsa County shoplifting conviction to Aberdeen, Inc. for collection. In 2014, after Ms. Meachum was arrested, the Tulsa Sheriff continued to hold Ms. Meachum in jail on a debt-collection arrest warrant from her 2007 case— which a judge issued without inquiring into Ms. Meachum’s ability to pay—and would not release her until she paid an additional $200. Ms. Meachum still owes money. She has no money to pay Aberdeen, Inc. and fears that she will be arrested for nonpayment of court debt.
22. Plaintiff Kendallia Killman is a 48-year-old resident of Norman, Oklahoma. Ms. Killman is indigent. Ms. Killman’s only income is a monthly disability benefit of $543 that she receives as the caretaker of her intellectually disabled adult son, which she uses to provide him basic necessities. In 2009, the Cleveland County district court imposed fines and fees against Ms. Killman for two misdemeanor charges. In 2015, the Cleveland County court clerk transferred the case to Aberdeen, Inc. for collection. Because of her poverty, Ms. Killman has been, and still is, unable to pay her court debt. As a result, Ms. Killman was arrested twice in connection with the collection of her debt. Ms. Killman currently has warrants issued against her in connection with the collection of her debt, and Aberdeen, Inc. has demanded a lump sum payment of $1,000 to recall them. Even though Ms. Killman has repeatedly informed the company that she does not
13

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 14 of 102
have any income of her own, Aberdeen, Inc. employees continued to threaten her with jailing. Ms. Killman cannot afford to pay Aberdeen, Inc. to have her warrant recalled, and lives in constant fear that she will be arrested and there will be nobody to care for her son, who will not be able to care for himself if she is arrested without warning.
23. Plaintiff Christopher Choate is a 40-year-old resident of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Mr. Choate is indigent. His only form of steady income is federal disability benefits, which he relies on to support himself, to help support his wife and her 15-month-old grandson, and to pay child support. Mr. Choate owes court debt on a Tulsa County criminal conviction from 2007. Because of his limited income, he has struggled to pay this court debt, and the Tulsa Clerk and Cost Administrator sought, and a Tulsa District Court judge issued, debt-collection arrest warrants against him. The Tulsa Clerk has transferred his case to Aberdeen, Inc. for collection. Mr. Choate has been arrested and held in the Tulsa County Jail on a debt-collection arrest warrant. When Mr. Choate’s father contacted the Tulsa Clerk about his son’s arrest, he was told he would need to get in touch with Aberdeen, Inc. to pay for his son’s release. Mr. Choate has paid Aberdeen, Inc. out of his disability income at the expense of providing basic necessities for his family, and he continues to live in fear that he will be arrested again if he does not pay Aberdeen, Inc. every month.
24. Plaintiff Ira Lee Wilkins is a 36-year-old resident of Tulsa, Oklahoma, who is currently incarcerated in the Oklahoma State Reformatory Work Center in Granite, Oklahoma. Mr. Wilkins is indigent. In March 2017, the Wagoner County District Court issued a debtcollection arrest warrant against Mr. Wilkins, and the Wagoner Court Clerk’s office later stated that, after his release from prison, Mr. Wilkins would be transferred to Wagoner County based on the warrant. To avoid this, Mr. Wilkins sought to get the warrant recalled. Aberdeen, Inc.
14

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 15 of 102
demanded that Mr. Wilkins pay $200 to recall the warrant despite repeated explanations that he had no income and that he could not generate income because he was in prison. Mr. Wilkins’ fiancée paid that amount, and his warrant was recalled. Mr. Wilkins still owes thousands of dollars in court debt. He has no job prospects for when he is released, will have no income, and will not be able to make payments to Aberdeen, Inc.
25. Plaintiff Melanie Holmes is 41 years old. Ms. Holmes lives with her husband and her 18-year-old disabled daughter. Ms. Holmes is indigent and has for years struggled to pay court debt from cases in multiple counties, including Creek, Rogers, and Tulsa Counties. In December 2016, Ms. Holmes was arrested on a debt-collection arrest warrant and detained in the Tulsa County jail for six nights because she could not pay a $500 fixed sum required for her release. At the time of her arrest and when the warrant for her arrest issued in October 2016, Ms. Holmes had no income, she had lost her home and was living out of her car, and she had to leave her daughter with her daughter’s father because she could not afford to care for her. There are currently active debt-collection warrants for Ms. Holmes that have been issued by Judge Moody and Judge Crosson, as well as the Creek County District Court, at least one of which was sought by Aberdeen, Inc.
26. Defendant Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc. (“Aberdeen, Inc.”) is a for-profit Oklahoma corporation registered to do business in Oklahoma. Aberdeen, Inc. contracted with Defendant Oklahoma Sheriffs’ Association to collect court debts owed in court cases arising in 54 counties throughout Oklahoma. The Agreement provides that Aberdeen, Inc. receives a percentage of the money that it collects. Aberdeen, Inc.’s cut of the money that it collects constitutes Aberdeen, Inc.’s sole revenue source.
27. Defendant Jim D. Shofner is an officer and manager of Aberdeen, Inc. Along
15

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 16 of 102
with Defendant Robert Shofner, Defendant Jim Shofner is responsible for establishing Aberdeen, Inc.’s collection practices, including the amount that a debtor must pay to have a warrant recalled and when to seek a new arrest warrant. He also jointly monitors, supervises, and controls all aspects of the collection process, including by listening to subordinates’ phone calls to ensure that the subordinates comply with company policies and procedures.
28. Defendant Robert “Rob” Shofner is a director of Aberdeen, Inc. Along with Defendant Jim Shofner, Defendant Rob Shofner is responsible for establishing Aberdeen, Inc.’s collection practices, including the amount that a debtor must pay to have an arrest warrant recalled and when to seek a new arrest warrant. He also jointly monitors and supervises all aspects of the collection process, including by listening to subordinates’ phone calls to ensure that the subordinates comply with company procedures. Defendant Rob Shofner verbally berates employees who do not follow the debt-collection policies that he dictates.
29. Defendant Oklahoma Sheriffs’ Association, Inc. is an Oklahoma corporation. The Sheriffs’ Association represents the Sheriffs of all 77 counties in Oklahoma as a lobbying organization. Each of the 54 Sheriff Defendants has authorized the Sheriffs’ Association to enter into the Agreement for debt collection services on their behalf. The Sheriffs’ Association, as the agent of and on behalf of the 54 Sheriff Defendants entered into the Agreement with Aberdeen, Inc. The Agreement has been renewed multiple times, most recently on January 1, 2017. The Sheriffs’ Association receives a percentage of what Aberdeen, Inc. collects, amounting to millions of dollars since the contract was first signed in 2010. In 2009, before contracting with Aberdeen, Inc., the Sheriffs’ Association had only $52,754 in total assets. By 2016, the Association’s assets increased to more than 60 times that amount, totaling $3,311,433.
16

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 17 of 102
30. The 54 Sheriff Defendants8 are the Sheriffs of 54 Oklahoma counties. Each
Defendant Sheriff’s office authorized the Sheriffs’ Association to enter into the contract for debt
collection services with Aberdeen, Inc. on the Sheriff’s behalf. The Sheriff Defendants have
authority under Oklahoma law to execute arrest warrants, and each of the Sheriff Defendants has
a policy and practice of arresting and confining individuals on debt-collection arrest warrants
issued based on unsworn statements, without inquiry into the individual’s ability to pay or any
other pre-deprivation process, and on warrant applications that no reasonable person could
believe were sufficient to justify arrest. Each Sheriff is also responsible for operating the county
jail in the Sheriff’s jurisdiction except where a County has charged a Jail Trust Authority with
that responsibility.9 The Sheriff Defendants each rely on money collected from court debts to
partially fund their operations. The Sheriff Defendants are sued in their individual and official
capacities.
31. Defendant Vic Regalado is the Sheriff of Tulsa County (the “Tulsa Sheriff”).
Sheriff Regalado has served as the Tulsa County Sheriff since 2016 and was in office when the
Agreement with Aberdeen, Inc. was renewed. The Tulsa Sheriff has a policy and practice of
8 In addition to the Tulsa Sheriff and the Rogers Sheriff, the Sheriff Defendants include: Jason Ritchie (Adair County); Rick Wallace (Alfalfa County); Tony Head (Atoka County); Ruben Parker, Jr. (Beaver County); Tony Almaguer (Blaine County); Chris West (Canadian County); Chris Bryant (Carter County); Norman Fisher (Cherokee County); Todd Gibson (Cleveland County); Bryan Jump (Coal County); Bret Rowling (Creek County); Harlan Moore (Delaware County); Clay Sander (Dewey County); Jerry Niles (Garfield County); Jim Weir (Grady County); Scott Sterling (Grant County); Thomas McClendon (Harper County); Roger Levick (Jackson County); Jeremie Wilson (Jefferson County); Jon Smith (Johnston County); Steve Kelley (Kay County); Dennis Banther (Kingfisher County); Jesse James (Latimer County); Rob Seale (LeFlore County); Marty Grisham (Love County); Danny Cryer (Marshall County); Mike Reed (Mayes County); Kevin Clardy (McCurtain County); Kevin Ledbetter (McIntosh County); Darrin Rodgers (Murray County); Sandy Hadley (Nowata County); Steven Worley (Okfuskee County); P.D. Taylor (Oklahoma County); Eddy Rice (Okmulgee County); Eddie Virden (Osage County); Jeremy Floyd (Ottawa County); Mike Waters (Pawnee County); R.B. Hauf (Payne County); Mike Booth (Pottawatomie County); B.J. Hedgecock (Pushmataha County); Darren Atha (Roger Mills County); Shannon Smith (Seminole County); Larry Lane (Sequoyah County); Matt Boley (Texas County); Bobby Whittington (Tillman County); Chris Elliot (Wagoner County); Rick Silver (Washington County); Roger Reeve (Washita County); Rudy Briggs, Jr. (Woods County); and Kevin Mitchell (Woodward County). 9 Specifically, Jail Trust Authorities exist in Cherokee, McCurtain, Okmulgee, Pottawatomie, and Tillman Counties.
17

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 18 of 102
arresting individuals with outstanding debt-collection warrants knowing that there has been no pre-deprivation process, no inquiry into ability to pay, and no application made based on sworn assertions of fact sufficient to justify an arrest. He has a policy of detaining such individuals in the Tulsa County Jail until the following Tuesday or Friday unless the individual pays $250 in cash, without any inquiry into ability to pay. The $250 cash release payment, if paid, is not returned upon the arrestee’s appearance at any future court date (indeed, there will be no future court date if the person is able to pay the debts in full), but is instead applied to the arrestee’s court debts, a portion of which is retained by the Sheriffs. The Tulsa Sheriff is the final policymaker for all county jail-related and county law enforcement decisions in Tulsa County. The Tulsa Sheriff is sued in his individual and official capacities.
32. Defendant Scott Walton is the Sheriff of Rogers County (the “Rogers Sheriff”). Sheriff Walton has served as the Sheriff of Rogers County since 2008 and was in office when the contract with Aberdeen, Inc. was first signed and when it was most recently renewed. The Rogers Sheriff has a policy and practice of arresting individuals with outstanding debt-collection warrants knowing that there has been no pre-deprivation process, no inquiry into ability to pay, and no application made based on sworn assertions of fact sufficient to justify an arrest. He has a policy of detaining arrested debtors in the Rogers County Jail, without inquiring into the arrestee’s ability to pay, unless the individual pays a pre-determined cash payment equivalent to the total amount of court debt she owes. If the arrestee is taken into custody on Friday, she must wait until Monday afternoon—or Tuesday afternoon in the case of a holiday—to see a judge. The pre-determined cash payment, if paid, is not returned upon the arrestee’s appearance at a future court date, but is instead applied to the arrestee’s court debts. The Rogers Sheriff is the final policymaker for all county jail-related and county law enforcement decisions in Rogers
18

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 19 of 102
County. The Rogers Sheriff is sued in his individual and official capacities. 33. Defendant Judge Moody issues arrest warrants for court debtors based solely on
unsworn statements alleging nonpayment without probable cause or any pre-deprivation process, including any inquiry into ability to pay. Judge Moody is a special judge employed at will by the Tulsa County District Court judges, including Defendants Judge Doug Drummond and Judge William J. Musseman, Jr. Defendants Judge Drummond and Judge Musseman (collectively, with Judge Moody, the “Tulsa County Judges”) supervise Judge Moody. Defendants Judge Drummond and Judge Musseman sat on a steering committee that reviewed District Court debt collection practices and, as a committee, recommended ceasing arrests based solely on debtcollection arrest warrants, i.e. the arrests that result from the warrants that Judge Moody issues. Despite their knowledge of these practices and the recommendation of the committee, Defendants Judge Drummond and Judge Musseman chose to allow the unlawful practices to continue. The Tulsa County Judges are sued in their official capacities for declaratory relief.
34. Defendant Judge Terrell S. Crosson (the “Rogers County Judge”) presides over criminal cases in Rogers County. The Rogers County Judge issues arrest warrants for court debtors based solely on unsworn statements alleging nonpayment without probable cause or any legal proceedings, including any inquiry into ability to pay. The Rogers County Judge is sued in his official capacity for declaratory relief.
35. Defendant Don Newbury is the Clerk of Court for the District Court of Tulsa County (the “Tulsa Clerk”). The Tulsa Clerk is responsible for collecting court debts. The Tulsa Clerk maintains a policy and practice of setting initial payment plans after sentencing that require individuals owing court debt to pay a minimum amount of $25 per month, regardless of ability to pay. The Tulsa Clerk also maintains a policy and practice of seeking debt-collection arrest
19

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 20 of 102
warrants (i.e., arrest warrants based solely on alleged nonpayment) without inquiring into the debtor’s ability to pay, without notice, and without sworn statements sufficient to justify arrest. Under the contract with Aberdeen, Inc. the Tulsa Clerk chooses which individual cases to transfer to Aberdeen, Inc. for collection, and maintains a policy and practice of transferring cases without conducting an inquiry into the debtor’s ability to pay. The Tulsa Clerk maintains a policy and practice of assessing a 30-percent penalty surcharge to the debt of anyone against whom a debtcollection arrest warrant issues, regardless of the individual’s ability to pay. After transferring a case to Aberdeen, Inc., the Tulsa Clerk assists Aberdeen, Inc. with seeking arrest warrants at Aberdeen, Inc.’s request. The Tulsa Clerk is sued in his individual and official capacities.
36. Defendant Darlene Bailey is the Cost Administrator for the Tulsa County District Court (the “Tulsa Cost Administrator”). The Tulsa Cost Administrator is also responsible for collecting court debts assessed by the Tulsa County Judges. The Tulsa Cost Administrator maintains a policy and practice of setting initial payment plans that require individuals owing court debts to pay a minimum amount of $25 per month, regardless of ability to pay. The Tulsa Cost Administrator also maintains a policy and practice of seeking debt-collection arrest warrants without inquiring into the warrant subject’s ability to pay, without notice, and without sworn statements sufficient to justify arrest. The Tulsa Cost Administrator chooses which individual cases to transfer to Aberdeen, Inc. for collection, and maintains a policy and practice of transferring such cases without conducting an inquiry into the debtor’s ability to pay. The Tulsa Cost Administrator maintains a policy and practice of assessing a 30-percent penalty surcharge to the debt of anyone against whom a debt-collection arrest warrant issues, regardless of the individual’s ability to pay. After transferring a case to Aberdeen, Inc., the Tulsa Cost Administrator assists Aberdeen, Inc. with seeking arrest warrants at Aberdeen, Inc.’s request.
20

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 21 of 102
The Tulsa Cost Administrator is sued in her individual and official capacities. 37. Defendant Kim Henry is the Clerk of Court for the District Court of Rogers
County (the “Rogers Clerk”). The Rogers Clerk is responsible for collecting court debt in Rogers County. The Rogers Clerk maintains a policy and practice of setting initial payment plans that require individuals owing court debt to pay a minimum amount, regardless of ability to pay. The Rogers Clerk also maintains a policy and practice of seeking debt-collection arrest warrants without inquiring into the warrant subject’s ability to pay. As authorized under the contract with Aberdeen, Inc., the Rogers Clerk chooses which individual cases to transfer to Aberdeen, Inc. for collection, and maintains a policy and practice of transferring such cases without conducting an inquiry into the debtor’s ability to pay. The Rogers Clerk maintains a policy and practice of assessing a 30-percent penalty surcharge to the debt of anyone against whom a debt-collection arrest warrant issues, regardless of the individual’s ability to pay. After transferring a case to Aberdeen, Inc., the Rogers Clerk assists Aberdeen, Inc. with seeking arrest warrants at Aberdeen, Inc.’s request. The Rogers Clerk is sued in her individual and official capacities.
38. The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa (“Tulsa County”) is the governing body of the County of Tulsa. Tulsa County, through the Sheriff and the Clerk of Court, is responsible for establishing policy for the Tulsa County jail and for the collection of court debt.
39. The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers (“Rogers County”) is the governing body of the County of Rogers. Rogers County, through the Sheriff and the Clerk of Court, is responsible for establishing policy for the Rogers County jail and for the collection of court debt.
LEGAL BACKGROUND
21

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 22 of 102
40. The United States Supreme Court held over 60 years ago that “[t]here can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has.” Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 19 (1956). The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that all persons are entitled to the equal protection of the laws. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Art. II, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution guarantee that no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Due process provides both substantive and procedural protections. Together, due process and equal protection work to ensure that states preserve the fundamental fairness of the courts.
41. The Oklahoma Constitution states that “The courts of justice of the State shall be open to every person, and speedy and certain remedy afforded for every wrong and for every injury to person, property, or reputation; and right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, delay, or prejudice.” Okla. Const. art. II § 6. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has been clear in its interpretation of that provision: The “fundamental right of court access” may not be “withheld merely for nonpayment of some liability or conditioned coercive collection devices.” Wall v. Marouk, 302 P.3d 775, 786 (Okla. 2013).
42. For indigent people charged with criminal offenses, these constitutional protections provide an essential barrier against deprivations by the state. Collectively, they serve to guarantee that a person will not be prejudiced in her criminal case because she is poor. As a basic principle of fairness, no person may be incarcerated solely because she does not have the money to pay a fine, fee, or cost. The United States Supreme Court confirmed this principle in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983), holding that a probationer may not be imprisoned for nonpayment of a fine or restitution, unless it is shown that the nonpayment was willful. If a person lacks the ability to pay despite bona fide efforts to acquire the resources to do so, imprisonment would
22

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 23 of 102
“deprive the probationer of his conditional freedom simply because, through no fault of his own, he cannot pay the fine.” Id. at 672-73.
43. Oklahoma’s statutory scheme provides protections that are intended to ensure this constitutional principle is respected in state courts. The Oklahoma Revised Statutes are explicit: a defendant found guilty of an offense may be imprisoned for nonpayment of a fine, fee, cost, or assessment only when “the trial court finds after notice and hearing that the defendant is financially able but refuses or neglects to pay.” Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 983(A). Similarly, nonpayment of a fine, fee, cost, or assessment may only result in a jail sentence “after a hearing and a judicial determination . . . that the defendant is able to satisfy the fine, cost, fee, or assessment by payment, but refuses or neglects to do so.” Id.
44. Empowered to implement these requirements to ensure their application to indigent defendants, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals created Rules that set out their procedural requirements. Okla. Ct. Crim. App. Rule 8.1 provides that when a court imposes a fine and/or costs, “a judicial hearing shall be conducted and judicial determination made as to the defendant’s ability to immediately satisfy the fine and costs.” Rule 8.3 requires that if a defendant serves a term of imprisonment as part of her sentence, “a determination shall be made as to the defendant’s ability to make installment payments after completion of the term of imprisonment.”
45. The Rules also prohibit indigent persons from being imprisoned for nonpayment of court debt if they are unable to pay. Rule 8.4 sets out the procedural requirement that if a defendant misses a payment, “he/she must be given an opportunity to be heard as to the refusal or neglect to pay the installment when due.” Rule 8.5 states clearly that if the defendant, “because of physical disability or poverty, is unable to pay the fine and/or costs either immediately or in installment payments, he/she must be relieved of the fine and/or costs; or, in the alternative, be required to
23

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 24 of 102
report back to the court at a time fixed by the court to determine if a change of condition has made it possible for the defendant to commence making installment payments toward the satisfaction of the fine and/or costs.”
46. The collapse of these protections has catastrophic results for impoverished people. Cycles of mounting debt, unmanageable payment plans, arrest warrants, and incarceration condemn people to a state of perpetual servitude and fear. Parents are taken from their children and held in jail cells until their freedom can be ransomed. Money needed to pay for the basic necessities of life is redirected to satisfy private debt collectors and court budgets.
47. Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Statute, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (RICO), for the purpose of “eliminat[ing] the infiltration of organized crime and racketeering into legitimate organizations operating in interstate commerce.” S. Rep. No. 91617 at 76 (1969). In the absence of impartial judicial oversight, predatory behavior by governmental agencies that seek to fund themselves on court debts collected from indigent criminal defendants and the private companies that receive contracts from the government to do this work, becomes racketeering. The widespread unchecked court-debt-collection practices detailed in the factual allegations below, without any of the fundamental legal protections required by state and federal law, has resulted in an extortion enterprise that is widespread and organized.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS I. Aberdeen Abuses Its Oversight of the Collection of Fines and Fees in Oklahoma
Counties 48. Aberdeen, Inc., a private, for-profit debt collection company, has engaged in a pattern and practice of threats, coercion, and exploitation that has inflicted enormous suffering on indigent people who have been assessed court debts in the district courts of 54 Oklahoma counties, including Plaintiffs and members of the putative classes.
24

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 25 of 102
49. Numerous actors in Oklahoma’s criminal legal system enable Aberdeen, Inc.’s extortionate activities. Judges, court clerks, county sheriffs, and Aberdeen, Inc. routinely ignore constitutional and statutory requirements in a concerted effort to extract as much money as possible from indigent people.
50. Aberdeen, Inc. takes control of debt collection for a specific case after a court clerk seeks, and a district court issues, a debt-collection arrest warrant against the individual owing debt, and a court clerk decides to transfer the case to Aberdeen, Inc.10 Court clerks automatically seek such arrest warrants based solely on nonpayment. Judges routinely issue such warrants when court clerks allege in unsworn statements that a person has not paid.11 In no case do Defendants provide any pre-deprivation process, inquiry into ability to pay, or sworn statements supporting the allegations of non-payment.
51. Each of the 54 counties in which the Sheriff Defendants operate have contractually delegated to Aberdeen, Inc. the responsibility to collect court debts. This includes delegating to Aberdeen, Inc. the authority to use its discretion to determine payment plans for the payment of court debts, monitor debtors’ compliance with those plans, control when to request the recall of warrants, and determine when to request that new arrest warrants issue.
52. Interviews with dozens of affected individuals and witnesses demonstrate the policies, practices, and procedures that characterize this scheme: once Aberdeen, Inc. takes control of a debt-collection case, it engages in threats and extortion to extract as much money as possible from the debtor, without regard to the debtor’s ability to pay or the person’s need to obtain the basic necessities of life.
10 In at least one county, the clerk of court sometimes transfers cases to Aberdeen, Inc. before a judge issues an arrest warrant. 11 These debt-collection arrest warrants are frequently referred to as “failure to pay,” or “FTP” warrants, or at times just “bench” warrants without further description.
25

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 26 of 102
A. The Contract Between the Sheriffs’ Association and Aberdeen, Inc. 53. In 2003, Oklahoma enacted a law to allow government officials to outsource court debt collection to private companies. 54. That law, amended in 2005 and 2010 to expand the scope of delegable powers and codified at Okla. Stat. tit. 19, §§ 514.4-514.5, now allows county sheriffs to enter into, and the Sheriffs’ Association to administer, contracts with private entities who will “attempt to locate and notify persons of their outstanding misdemeanor or failure-to-pay warrants.” Id. § 514.4(A). 55. These contracts enable private debt-collection companies and the Sheriffs’ Association to benefit from the money that the private companies collect from debtors. Under Okla. Stat. tit. 19, § 514.5(a), any time an arrest warrant is “referred” to the private entity, a 30percent penalty surcharge is added. For example, if a debtor owed $1,000, as soon as the case is transferred to Aberdeen, Inc. for collection, the debtor immediately owes $1,300. Both the Sheriffs’ Association and the private entity get paid from this 30-percent penalty surcharge. The surcharge, once collected, belongs to the Sheriffs’ Association in the first instance, but a portion of the money collected may be allocated to the private entity as compensation. Okla. Stat. tit. 19, § 514.5(b). As a result, both the Sheriffs Association and the private entity have a direct financial interest in all of their debt-collection decisions and determinations. 56. In 2010, the same year that the current law governing this outsourcing took effect, the Sheriffs’ Association, acting as the agent of the Defendant Sheriffs, entered into a contract (the “Agreement”) with Aberdeen, Inc.12 57. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Sheriff and Court Clerk of each county have discretion to select cases to refer to Aberdeen, Inc.13 Aberdeen, Inc. is then responsible for
12 Exhibit A, “Agreement for Collection”. 13 Id. at 3.
26

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 27 of 102
collecting payments from those debtors.14 Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, a portion of the money collected from the debtor is remitted to the Court Clerk who referred the case, a portion is retained by the Sheriffs’ Association, and a portion is paid to Aberdeen, Inc.15
58. The contract allocates to the Court Clerk (with certain exceptions not relevant here) either the total amount of the court debt that the debtor owed when the debt-collection arrest warrant issued (i.e., before the addition of the 30-percent penalty surcharge) or, if Aberdeen collects less than the total court debt owed, 77 percent of the amount collected.16
59. Aberdeen, Inc. and the Sheriffs’ Association then split the 30-percent surcharge or, if the company collects less than the full amount the debtor owes (i.e. the court debt plus the 30percent surcharge), 23 percent of the payments collected.17 Although a lack of publicly available information makes it difficult to determine the exact division of these funds,18 it is clear that the more Aberdeen, Inc. collects, the more it profits. The Agreement contemplates collection of substantial amounts of money, as a separate payment structure takes effect once Aberdeen, Inc. collects $1,000,000.
60. The Agreement requires government actors to assist in Aberdeen, Inc.’s collection efforts. The Agreement guarantees Aberdeen, Inc. access to court files “utilized by the court clerks and judges of certain district courts of this state for case management and accounting purposes.”19 Each county sheriff’s office and court clerk’s office are to make “collective efforts” to obtain debtor information to provide to the Sheriffs’ Association, which in turn must share “any debtor
14 Id. at 4. 15 Id. at 5-6. 16 Id. at 6. 17 Id. at 5. 18 The provision of the Agreement addressing the division of funds is redacted from the only copy available to Plaintiffs. 19 Id. at 3.
27

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 28 of 102
information that would be available to [the] Association for purposes of collecting the warrant” with Aberdeen, Inc.20
61. In practice, the Defendants have given Aberdeen, Inc. even greater authority than the contract contemplates. In at least one county, Aberdeen, Inc. not only has the ability to access and view the records in KellPro, the district court’s internal record management system, but it also has authority to edit individual case files—that is, Aberdeen, Inc. exercises control over the permanent government records of criminal and traffic cases.
62. Court clerks also delegate the function of determining when to seek a new arrest warrant for nonpayment to Aberdeen, Inc. after a case has been transferred to the company for collection. In Tulsa County, the Tulsa Clerk has annotated case dockets in a way that shows collaboration with Aberdeen, Inc., including specifically warning: “DO NOT ISSUE WARRANT UNLESS CONTACTED BY ABERDEEN.” Aberdeen, Inc. has discretion to determine the amount of money a debtor must pay, the deadline for making the payment, and when to seek a warrant for nonpayment. If a debtor does not pay the amount Aberdeen, Inc. requires by the deadline the company sets, then Aberdeen, Inc. contacts the court clerk to seek an arrest warrant for nonpayment of court debts. Court clerks assist Aberdeen, Inc. in its efforts to seek arrest warrants by putting the company’s requests before judges.
63. When Aberdeen, Inc. seeks an arrest warrant, it does not swear under oath or affirmation to any factual allegations establishing probable cause. It merely sends a message that contains an unsworn allegation that the debtor has not made payments. Messages sent by Aberdeen, Inc. omit information that is material and relevant to the issuance of an arrest warrant,
20 Id. at 7-8.
28

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 29 of 102
including that debtors are indigent, debtors’ only source income is means-tested disability benefits, and debtors have offered to pay amounts less than what Aberdeen, Inc. has arbitrarily required.
64. Judges are key to Aberdeen, Inc.’s collection efforts because they issue the debtcollection arrest warrants Aberdeen, Inc. seeks, even though the warrants are predicated on nothing more than Aberdeen, Inc.’s unsworn factual allegation that a debtor has not made payments. There is no pre-deprivation notice or other formal process, no opportunity to be heard, and no hearing of any kind before a neutral arbiter before Aberdeen, Inc. seeks, and judges sign, debt-collection arrest warrants.
65. The Sheriff Defendants are also key to Aberdeen, Inc.’s scheme, not only because they authorize the Sheriffs’ Association to enter into the contract with Aberdeen, Inc., but also because the Sheriffs execute the illegal arrest warrants and detain debtors based solely on the unsworn allegations of nonpayment, even though they have knowledge of the company’s policies and practices alleged in this lawsuit. Sheriffs then keep debtors in jail cells if they are too poor to pay a fixed sum required for their release.21
B. Aberdeen, Inc. Uses Threats, Material Omissions, and Unreasonable Demands to Coerce Payments from Indigent Defendants Throughout Oklahoma
66. To maximize its potential profit, Aberdeen, Inc. uses an ongoing scheme of threats, misrepresentations, material omissions, and manipulation of the legal system to coerce every possible dollar from debtors whose arrest warrants are assigned to Aberdeen, Inc., with no regard to the person’s ability to pay or the hardship that their demands inflict on the person and her family. Aberdeen, Inc.’s practice of extorting payments through threats of unlawful arrest are widespread, commonly known, and flagrant.
21 These allegations pertaining to detention do not apply to the Sheriffs in counties with jail trust authorities. See supra note 6.
29

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 30 of 102
67. Due to the actions of Aberdeen, Inc. and its employees, and the complicit participation of the judges, court clerks, cost administrators, and Defendant Sheriffs, indigent individuals become trapped in a cycle of mounting debts, arrest, and incarceration, in flagrant violation of their rights under the Constitutions of the United States and Oklahoma, federal civil and criminal law, and Oklahoma statutory law.
68. As a matter of policy and practice, to coerce payments and increase profits, Aberdeen, Inc. promises to recall an active debt-collection arrest warrant if a debtor makes the payment the company demands, and threatens to issue a debt-collection arrest warrant if a debtor fails to make ongoing payments after a warrant has been recalled.
69. Aberdeen, Inc. does not have the formal legal power to recall or issue arrest warrants by itself. But Aberdeen, Inc. regularly explicitly misrepresents and implies by omission in communications with Plaintiffs and members of the proposed classes that it has that power (i.e., the power to control whether and when debtors are arrested). Aberdeen, Inc. and its employees tell people with active arrest warrants that Aberdeen, Inc. can recall the arrest warrants if a certain amount is paid. Similarly, Aberdeen, Inc. and its employees tell people who have had their arrest warrants recalled that if they fail to make continuing payments that the company itself has determined, Aberdeen, Inc. will secure new warrants for their arrest.
70. Although these practices formally misrepresent the law, they are an accurate description of the de facto legal system put in place by the Agreement and by the racketeering enterprise.
71. Even in those instances when Aberdeen, Inc. employees tell people who owe money that Aberdeen, Inc. can only seek the recall or issuance of an arrest warrant from the court, they regularly imply that the court will automatically follow their instructions. Aberdeen, Inc. at
30

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 31 of 102
all times conveys the recall and issuance of arrest warrants as something within its own power. People who are the subject of the arrest warrants are not advised of any rights they might have in the process, including the right not to be incarcerated simply for being too poor to pay and the right to procedures by which their ability to pay can be assessed. The threat is explicit and systemic as a matter of policy: pay Aberdeen, Inc. what it demands when it demands it, or be arrested and jailed.
72. Aberdeen, Inc. contacts people with arrest warrants, including Plaintiffs and members of the proposed classes, by sending letters and making phone calls. From the first letter, the threatening nature of the relationship is clear. Aberdeen, Inc. writes, “Please contact us to make arrangements and avoid the service of any bench warrant.” Similarly, in its second letter, Aberdeen, Inc. informs the recipient that, if contacted, “[Aberdeen, Inc.] will discuss options with you that can allow you to make monthly payments on your balance and have your bench warrant(s) recalled.”
73. During phone calls, Aberdeen, Inc. employees routinely state that the debtor will be arrested if the debtor does not make sufficient payments and that the only way to remove an active arrest warrant is to make a payment that Aberdeen, Inc. deems sufficient.
74. Aberdeen, Inc. employees use several other specific means to convey the threat of arrest in order to coerce payment. For example, Aberdeen, Inc. employees are instructed to invoke potential harm to people’s children. A sample company training script includes the following:
Like I said I want to help you get this resolved. I would not want you to get picked up on this warrant and not be there for your kids. 75. On at least one call with a member of the proposed class, an Aberdeen, Inc. employee passed the phone to a person who purported to be a law enforcement officer, who stated
31

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 32 of 102
that he would come and immediately arrest the debtor if the debtor did not pay enough money to Aberdeen, Inc.
76. Aberdeen, Inc. also makes threats of arrest to, and collects money from, debtors and debtors’ family members who live outside of Oklahoma. Where Aberdeen, Inc. has contact information for a debtor’s family member, or if a family member answers the debtor’s phone, employees also threaten the family member with the debtor’s arrest.
C. Aberdeen, Inc. Demands Unreasonably High Payments Without Regard for Ability to Pay
77. The only way for a person to get Aberdeen, Inc. to stop its threats, to request that a warrant be recalled, or to prevent the company from seeking an arrest warrant is to make a lumpsum payment in an amount predetermined by Aberdeen, Inc., and thereafter make ongoing payments on a “payment plan” determined by Aberdeen, Inc. at its discretion.
78. When a debtor owes more than $500, Aberdeen, Inc.’s written policy is to require an initial payment of 40 percent of the total, followed by “reasonable” monthly payments. Aberdeen, Inc. employees and supervisors determine whether a payment is “reasonable.” To illustrate, the initial debts after a guilty plea on a misdemeanor charge of Driving Under the Influence typically total about $1,300. If the person cannot pay the debts to the court clerk, the court clerk requests and the judge issues an arrest warrant, without constitutionally required predeprivation process. When the court clerk refers the case to Aberdeen, Inc. because of the nonpayment, the 30-percent penalty surcharge increases the total debt to $1,690. Before Aberdeen, Inc. will even consider recalling the warrant, the debtor must make a lump-sum payment of $664 and agree to a payment plan. Impoverished individuals who are struggling to meet basic needs cannot afford the lump sum payments.
32

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 33 of 102
79. Despite Aberdeen, Inc.’s policy to use its discretion to set “reasonable” payment plans before it seeks to have debtors arrested, the monthly payments it demands from indigent people are not individualized and do not account for a debtors’ ability to meet the basic necessities of life. Aberdeen, Inc. does not offer deferrals for people who have no income and no ability to pay, nor will it accept any options for resolution of debts other than payment. Aberdeen, Inc. employees are trained not to accept monthly payment amounts below $50.
80. Because Aberdeen, Inc. employees are required to send a request to have the warrant recalled any time it accepts payment, once Aberdeen, Inc. employees determine the amount the debtor must pay, the company will refuse to accept any payment less than that amount, even if the person cannot afford to make the full payment Aberdeen, Inc. demands. Aberdeen, Inc. refuses to accept lower payments as a matter of policy to exploit the threat of an arrest warrant to obtain as much money as possible. For example, if Aberdeen, Inc. demanded a $664 lump sum payment, but a person was only able to pay $200, Aberdeen, Inc. would refuse to accept the payment, and the person would not be able to make any payment on their debt or have their arrest warrant recalled.
D. Aberdeen, Inc. Demands Payment From People Who It Knows are Indigent and Lack the Means to Pay
81. The Agreement ostensibly requires Aberdeen, Inc. and its employees to follow the law. It requires that Aberdeen, Inc.:
use its best efforts to collect any Debts associated with any Warrants referred to Aberdeen hereunder solely utilizing means which are legal, necessary and proper. Aberdeen shall not harass or exert undue pressure on delinquent debtors or employ any procedure that would cast discredit upon the Association, the County Clerk(s), or otherwise subject the Association, the County Sheriff(s), and/or such Court Clerk(s) to public disapproval; and (ii) comply with all
33

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 34 of 102
applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations with regard to collection practices and procedures.22 Aberdeen, Inc. routinely and openly violates this provision of the Agreement, in the course of its daily activities, including engaging in activities that violate the Constitution and statutory law, with the full knowledge and informal agreement of the Association and the Defendant Sheriffs. 82. Aberdeen, Inc. demands payment on threat of arrest from people who its employees know to be indigent, including those who were found indigent for the purposes of their previous case, those who tell Aberdeen, Inc. that they are destitute, and those whose only form of income is Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability payments, Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), or other forms of means-tested government assistance. The company does not inform people of—and, in fact, conceals—state and federal substantive and procedural rights in connection with debt-collection, such as that assets may be protected or that processes exist for debtors to vindicate their legal rights. In its promotional materials, the company expressly states that “[t]ypically, [Aberdeen, Inc.] will put persons on disability or SSI on a minimum payment schedule of approximately $50 per month.” In its guidance to employees, Aberdeen, Inc. emphasizes the collection of money from indigent disabled people because of their steady stream of government income and provides a sample script for a conversation with a person receiving SSI disability benefits, in which it advises the employee to demand a $150 down payment, followed by monthly payments of $50 for a hypothetical outstanding balance of $680. SSI disability payments provide income well below the federal poverty level, and the payments required by Aberdeen, Inc. are impossible for many indigent persons to make without risking irreparable harm to themselves, their families, and their children.
22 Exhibit A, Agreement for Collection.
34

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 35 of 102
83. Oklahoma law allows people who have had their debt-collection arrest warrants transferred to Aberdeen, Inc. to make payments directly to the courts instead of to Aberdeen, Inc. Paying Aberdeen, Inc. instead of the court is often detrimental to the payer because Aberdeen, Inc. usually demands larger payments. Knowing this, Aberdeen, Inc. forbids its employees from informing people of their legal rights and actively attempts to prevent debtors from learning of these other lawful avenues of paying court debts. The company includes in its guidelines the directive “You are to NEVER refer any defendant to call the court clerks.” Aberdeen, Inc. and its employees falsely tell people that payment through Aberdeen, Inc. is the only option, and intentionally obscure the fact that payment directly to the court is an available, and almost always preferable, option for lifting a debt-collection arrest warrant. As a result, many indigent individuals who have had their cases transferred to Aberdeen, Inc. are unaware that there are any other options.
84. Even for those people who independently are able to determine that payments may be made directly to the court and set up a payment plan with the court, Aberdeen, Inc. will continue to call and threaten them, telling the debtor that Aberdeen, Inc. will seek an arrest warrant if they do not pay Aberdeen, Inc.
85. If a person falls behind on payments to Aberdeen, Inc., its employees begin calling more frequently, and make additional threats to seek an arrest warrant until payment is made. Aberdeen, Inc. does not make any inquiry into whether or not the nonpayment was willful, nor does it inform indigent people that they have any option but to pay the amount demanded by Aberdeen, Inc.
35

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 36 of 102
86. In fact, in Aberdeen, Inc.’s training materials, it expressly instructs its employees to “overcome” any objections to payment based on inability to pay, including the fact that a person cannot get a job or is on a fixed income.
87. For those who have fallen behind on payments, Aberdeen, Inc. will demand an increase in the amount that must be paid to return to the previously established monthly payments. In a sample training script for employees, Aberdeen, Inc. instructs employees to warn debtors that, when an account is 60 days delinquent, the county could reissue a debt-collection arrest warrant if the debtor does not make a payment equivalent to the monthly payment plus half of the amount of missed payments. These amounts and policies are determined by Aberdeen, Inc. at its discretion and are inconsistent with both Oklahoma and federal law.
E. Aberdeen, Inc., the Courts, and the Sheriffs Collude to Arrest and Incarcerate Indigent Persons Who Do Not Pay Enough to Aberdeen, Inc.
88. If a person who has entered into a payment plan with Aberdeen, Inc. falls behind on payments and is not able to comply with Aberdeen, Inc.’s demands for additional money, Aberdeen, Inc. will seek a warrant for arrest.
89. When Aberdeen, Inc. requests that a person be arrested, it sends a boilerplate application to the court clerk’s office requesting that a warrant be issued.23 As a matter of policy and practice, Aberdeen, Inc. does not include information about indigence or ability to pay in its application seeking an arrest warrant, even when Aberdeen, Inc. has reason to know that the lack of payment was a result of inability to pay.
90. As a matter of policy and practice, these arrest-warrant applications are not based on any factual allegations sworn by oath or affirmation. They are simply the company’s informal
23 Warrant applications sent by Aberdeen, Inc. take the form of informal emails that only contain basic information about payment status.
36

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 37 of 102
requests to have a debtor arrested based solely on the debtor’s nonpayment to Aberdeen, Inc. of an amount of money demanded by the company at its discretion, by a deadline also determined at its discretion.
91. As a matter of course, judges in numerous counties routinely issue debt-collection arrest warrants requested by Aberdeen, Inc.
92. Just as court clerks seek and judges issue initial arrest warrants without establishing that a debtor’s nonpayment was willful, Aberdeen, Inc. seeks additional new arrest warrants without any inquiry into or knowledge of whether the person had the means to pay, and courts routinely issue those warrants. Often, both the company and the court know that the debtor who is the subject of the arrest warrant is indigent (for example, because the debtor was assigned a public defender on their underlying case).
93. No one—not Aberdeen, Inc., not court clerks, and not judges—gives notice to indigent debtors who fall behind on payments or provides debtors a meaningful opportunity to be heard regarding their ability to pay prior to arrest on the debt-collection arrest warrant (and Aberdeen, Inc. affirmatively misleads many debtors about the lack of alternative options). As a matter of policy and practice, once issued, Defendants almost never recall debt-collection arrest warrants unless payment is made.
94. As a result of these practices, indigent debtors who are unable to pay the amounts demanded by Aberdeen, Inc. live in perpetual fear of arrest, never knowing when they will be taken to jail simply because of their poverty.
95. The virtually automatic issuance of debt-collection arrest warrants for those who fall behind on payments violates the requirements of Rule 8.4 of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which requires a hearing on ability to pay prior to incarceration for nonpayment of court
37

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 38 of 102
debt, see supra ¶ 44. Despite Rule 8.4’s express procedural requirements, counties that contract with Aberdeen, Inc. routinely provide no hearing regarding nonpayment prior to issuance and execution of an arrest warrant, and Aberdeen, Inc. affirmatively attempts to prevent debtors from learning of these legal rights. Aberdeen, Inc., the courts, and the Defendant Sheriffs collude to deprive the plaintiff class of their statutory and constitutional right to be heard on ability to pay prior to arrest.
96. In all counties that make referrals to Aberdeen, Inc., the company’s role does not end, or even diminish, once a person is arrested on a warrant requested by Aberdeen, Inc. Aberdeen, Inc. employees continue to call and threaten the person’s family members, demanding payment and negotiating the amount required before Aberdeen, Inc. will ask that the person be released. If Aberdeen, Inc. concludes that the debtor’s family and friends have made an adequate payment, the company will ask a county official to release the debtor. As part of their ongoing scheme, the government Defendants abide by these requests, confirming Aberdeen, Inc.’s power to control whether a person is imprisoned.
97. People arrested on debt-collection arrest warrants must pay to be released from custody before seeing a judge. This is routinely described as a “bond,” but does not function as that term is understood in American law. As a matter of policy and practice, the money is not returned to the debtor upon appearance at any future court date (indeed, there are no further legal proceedings if the person makes payments to Aberdeen, Inc. that the company deems adequate). Instead, the cash payment is applied toward her court debt. The amount required for release is either a standard predetermined amount or an amount tied to the amount of court debt owed, rather than to any legitimate justification for a “bond,” such as an amount necessary to reasonably assure future court appearance. As with payment to Aberdeen, Inc., an indigent arrestee who cannot
38

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 39 of 102
afford to pay the cash for release must wait in jail until a payment is made or until the Sheriff (or other county authority responsible for the jail) brings the person to court for a hearing.
98. The Sheriffs who are responsible for jails keep debtors in jail for days, weeks, and—in some counties—several months if they are unable to afford the amount required for release.24
99. Even when the jailing is for a period of days, debtors face serious consequences in addition to the irreparable harm of physical bodily confinement, including loss of employment and housing, and sometimes child custody, solely because they are too poor to pay the amount Aberdeen, Inc. demands for their release.
F. Aberdeen, Inc.’s Predatory Behavior is Company Policy Established by Defendants Jim Shofner and Rob Shofner
100. Defendants Jim Shofner and Rob Shofner25 (“the Shofners”), are supervising officers at Aberdeen, Inc., where they establish company policy and direct collection activities. The Shofners have personally instructed and trained Aberdeen, Inc. employees on how to obtain payment from debtors and what minimum payment amounts to demand.
101. The Shofners routinely listen in during phone calls between Aberdeen, Inc. employees and debtors. If one of the Shofners believes that a debt collector has not been effective or has been insufficiently aggressive in seeking payment, he will reprimand or fire the employee. Termination decisions are routinely made by the Shofners based on how much money employees are able to collect.
24 Attorneys are rarely, if ever, provided to indigent people arrested on debt-collection arrest warrants. Even after the debtor appears in court for legal proceedings, the person is regularly just returned to jail to “sit out” the debts without any inquiry into or findings concerning ability to pay or alternatives to jailing. These routine constitutional violations enable Aberdeen, Inc. to credibly threaten prolonged periods of incarceration for non-payment to coerce increased debt payments that it shares with the Sheriffs’ Association, and that fund the courts, judicial salaries, and retirement funds. 25 Jim Shofner is Rob Shofner’s father.
39

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 40 of 102
102. Employees are also financially incentivized by the Shofners to extract as much money as possible from debtors without regard for their ability to pay. As directed by the Shofners, the amount of Aberdeen, Inc. employees’ compensation is affected by the amount of money they are able to collect. Aberdeen, Inc. also stages competitions to see who can collect the most money, with the winner receiving a financial reward.
103. The Shofners do not train or instruct employees on constitutional or statutory requirements that prevent debtors from being imprisoned for nonpayment unless the nonpayment was willful. They affirmatively train employees to coerce payments without providing basic notice or information concerning federal and state legal rights.
G. The Agreement’s Lucrative Results 104. The arrangement between the Sheriffs’ Association and Aberdeen, Inc. is a financial boon to both organizations. 105. In 2016, the Sheriffs’ Association made over $829,075 from its warrant collection program, and the Association held $3,311,433 in assets. By contrast, in 2009, before the Association’s arrangement with Aberdeen, Inc. was in place, the Sheriffs’ Association had only $52,754 in total assets. 106. From 2009 to 2015, Association funds expended on “conferences, conventions, and meetings” increased from $34,070 to $79,992. Money spent on “advertising and promotion” grew from a meager $189 to $128,630. 107. The Agreement has also been wildly profitable for Aberdeen, Inc., which has no other revenue source. Aberdeen, Inc. began as a four-employee company with approximately $100,000 a month in revenue. Through the Agreement with the Sheriffs’ Association, Aberdeen, Inc. grew to 45 employees with approximately $1.2 million a month in revenue. Although the
40

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 41 of 102
scheme is profitable for Aberdeen, Inc. and the Sheriffs’ Association, the benefit to the public is nonexistent. Despite growing caseloads and new or increased fees, the amount of criminal court debt collected by the state has actually decreased since 2003.26 II. Improper Incentives and Constitutional Violations Pervade the Administration of
Fines and Fees in the Courts 108. The collection of court debts in many of the 54 counties in which Defendant Sheriffs are located violates debtors’ rights before a collection case is ever transferred to Aberdeen, Inc., and the violations continue once the for-profit company becomes involved. 109. The Tulsa County Judges, the Tulsa Clerk, and the Tulsa Cost Administrator assess fines and fees and set initial payment plans in Tulsa County. In Rogers County, the Rogers County Judge and Rogers Clerk share these responsibilities. These Defendants impose court debt and set the terms of payment with improper financial incentives to generate and maximize revenue; seek and issue debt-collection arrest warrants without inquiry into ability to pay; and jail debtors solely because they are too poor to pay the amounts demanded.
A. Improper Financial Incentives in Tulsa and Rogers Counties 110. Tulsa and Rogers Counties illustrate the flaws with Oklahoma’s use of arrests and jailing to collect court debts. 111. Defendants Tulsa County Judges and Rogers County Judge (“Defendant Judges”), as well as Defendants Tulsa Clerk, the Tulsa County Cost Administrator, and Rogers Clerk (“Defendant Clerks”) (together, “Court Defendants”) depend on court debt to fund a number of necessary operations in their courthouses.
26 See Ryan Gentzler, The Cost Trap: How Excessive Fees Lock Oklahomans Into the Criminal Justice System Without Boosting State Revenue, Okla. Pol. Inst., at 11–17 (2017), available at https://okpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/TheCost-Trap-How-Excessive-Fees-Lock-Oklahomans-Into-the-Criminal-Justice-System-without-Boosting-StateRevenue-updated.pdf [hereinafter The Cost Trap].
41

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 42 of 102
112. Numerous fines and fees that the Defendant Clerks collect in criminal and traffic cases are deposited into each county’s “Court Fund.” The Court Fund is used to pay for many expenses, without which Court Defendants’ duties would not be possible. Expenses covered by the Court Fund include compensation of bailiffs, juror fees, witness fees, office supplies, renovation and maintenance of courtrooms and judges’ chambers, judicial robes, transcripts, utility bills, training for court staff, and indigent defense services. See Okla. Stat. tit. 20, § 1394(B). Additionally, Court Fund money is used to pay some employees’ salaries. For example, from July through September 2017 (the first quarter of fiscal year 2018), the Rogers County Clerk of Court’s office collected $304,396.07 in court debt in criminal and traffic cases, accounting for 62 percent of the money in the Rogers County Court Fund. In that same quarter, Rogers County spent $79,967.21 in Court Fund revenue to pay employees of the Clerk’s Office. During that same period, the Tulsa County Clerk of Court collected $1,438,766.32 in criminal and traffic cases, accounting for 47 percent of the money in the Tulsa County Court Fund.
113. Pursuant to statute, expenditures of Court Fund money are determined by a Governing Board consisting of, in each county, one district judge, one associate district judge, and the Defendant Clerk. See Okla. Stat. tit. 20, § 20-1302.
114. Both courts and Defendant Clerks’ offices also receive additional money from court debts through their Court Clerk’s Revolving Fund and District Court Revolving Fund. Although the Defendant Clerks initially collect all fees (with exceptions not relevant here), certain fees are earmarked for other agencies, instead of being deposited into the Court Fund. At the time the Defendant Clerks remit those fees to the other agencies, they retain (again, with certain exceptions not relevant here) 10 percent for the Court Clerk’s Revolving Fund and 15 percent for the District Court Revolving Fund. Defendant Clerks rely on the money in their respective Court Clerk’s
42

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 43 of 102
Revolving Funds to pay for the operation of their offices. Expenditures from the Court Clerk’s Revolving fund in each county must be approved by the Defendant Clerk and either a district judge or an associate judge. In fiscal year 2017, the Rogers Clerk used $86,576.06 from this fund, on court operations, including salaries.
115. In addition, salaries and retirement benefits of the Defendant Judges and certain members of their staff depend in large part on the money Defendants collect from debtors. Any surplus in a Court Fund must be remitted to the State Judicial Revolving Fund. The money in that Fund is then used to pay salaries and retirement benefits for judges, court reporters, and secretarybailiffs. In fiscal year 2017, the State Judicial Revolving Fund spent $34,336,861 on salaries and $5,186,700 on contributions to the State of Oklahoma Uniform Retirement System for Justices and Judges. By contrast, only $6,762,504 in general revenue funding (i.e., tax revenue) was used on judicial and court personnel salaries and only $17 was contributed to the judges’ retirement accounts. Without the money from court debt, there would be woefully insufficient funding for judges’ salaries and retirements.
B. Practices in Tulsa and Rogers Counties 116. It is against this backdrop of misaligned incentives—where there is a substantial risk that a desire to maximize revenue will overcome the need to do justice—that Defendants collect court debts.
i. Tulsa County 117. In Tulsa County, every time a defendant enters a guilty plea to a criminal offense, the judge is required to sign a “Rule 8” form. The form purports to outline certain fines and fees for each count. However, the form does not include a number of “costs.” These extra debts are later charged to the defendant outside of the legal proceedings by the Cost Administrator and Court
43

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 44 of 102
Clerk. There are a large number of different costs, including those imposed for vindication of constitutional rights like appearing in court, having an interpreter, or requesting a jury trial.27
118. After entry of the guilty plea in court, or upon release from incarceration following a prison sentence, the debtor is instructed to go to the Cost Administrator, a division of the Tulsa Clerk’s office, to make payment or set up a payment plan. Per policy established by the Tulsa Clerk, the Tulsa Cost Administrator presents the following choices: either pay the full amount by the end of the probation period (if a probationary term is imposed), or make minimum payments to the court every month. Minimum payments are typically $50 or $75—and never below $25 per month—regardless of the debtor’s ability to pay or whether the debtor depends on government assistance to survive. For debtors living in poverty, this is a practical impossibility. The Tulsa County Judges, the Tulsa Clerk, and the Tulsa Cost Administrator provide no options for alternatives to payment when fines and fees are imposed, nor do they make a meaningful inquiry into, or make findings concerning, ability to pay. The practice of demanding that debtors use government assistance to pay debts conflicts with multiple judicial rulings declaring such conduct illegal, and conflicts with federal law. See, e.g., In re Lampart, 856 N.W. 2d 192 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014); State v. Eaton, 99 P.3d 661 (Mont. 2004); 42 U.S.C. § 407 (exempting federal benefits from attachment, garnishment or other legal collection processes, with certain exceptions not relevant here).
27 At the time of initially assessing fines, Defendant Tulsa County Judges will routinely check the box “able to pay” on the Rule 8 form even though they know that they have made no inquiry into that question. At times, no box will be checked by the judge, but the presumption is always the same—that the defendant will have to pay. This procedure of imposing fines and fees without regard to a defendant’s poverty violates the clear directives of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, as stated in ¶ 44 above. Tulsa County Judges ignore these directives as a matter of course. If a person’s public defender represents to the court that her client is indigent and requests a hearing or for deferral of fines and costs, the Tulsa County Judges typically deny the request or assert that they have no authority to grant the request.
44

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 45 of 102
119. If a debtor tells the Tulsa Cost Administrator that she cannot pay any amount, the Cost Administrator informs the debtor that she must pay nevertheless.
120. If a debtor does not make a payment during the first six months of the payment period, the Tulsa Cost Administrator’s office, pursuant to policy established by the Tulsa Clerk, seeks a debt-collection arrest warrant based solely on the nonpayment, which as a matter of course is signed by Defendant Judge Moody. The application for this warrant is not based on any factual allegations supported by oath or affirmation, and no pre-deprivation legal process is provided. As a matter of policy and practice, no information concerning the debtor’s indigence is included, even when the debtor had informed the Cost Administrator that the debtor is unable to pay.
121. For active debt-collection cases, if the debtor makes a payment during the initial six-month period, employees of the Tulsa Cost Administrator’s office, pursuant to policy established by the Tulsa Clerk, will then begin conducting annual reviews. Once the annual review process begins, the Tulsa Cost Administrator’s office will seek an arrest warrant if the debtor makes no payment for twelve months. No notice or opportunity to be heard is provided to the debtor before or after Judge Moody signs and issues the warrant.
122. Once Judge Moody issues the arrest warrant sought by the Cost Administrator, the Tulsa Clerk’s and Cost Administrator’s offices typically require a $250 payment to recall the warrant. However, as a matter of practice, Tulsa Clerk employees will informally negotiate the price of recalling the arrest warrant with debtors who personally come to the office. Regardless of the reasons for nonpayment, debt-collection arrest warrants are not recalled without some amount of payment.
123. Though the indigent debtor may have been unable to pay because of poverty, the Tulsa Clerk adds an $80 fee to the individual’s court debts as the purported “cost” of the arrest
45

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 46 of 102
warrant. If a debtor has multiple cases, the Tulsa Clerk adds the $80 fee to each case. This is true even if, for example, two tickets issued during a single traffic stop are filed under two separate case numbers. The Tulsa Clerk and Cost Administrator seek, and Tulsa County Judges issue, arrest warrants without any inquiry into ability to pay and often in the face of evidence—such as the fact that the debtor was designated indigent and assigned a public defender—that the debtor lacks the ability to pay.
124. After the filing of this lawsuit, Tulsa County stopped using Aberdeen, Inc.’s services for collection of Tulsa County court debt. The subsequent allegations reflect practices throughout the time period preceding the filing of the First Amended Complaint.
125. If no payments have been made within 30 days after the issuance of a debtcollection arrest warrant, the Clerk and Cost Administrator exercise their discretion under the Agreement to transfer the case to Aberdeen, Inc. The Tulsa Clerk’s office then adds the 30-percent penalty surcharge to the debt because of the transfer.
126. Once Aberdeen, Inc. has received the case, it conducts the extortionate activities described above in Sections I.B-E. If debtors make an initial lump sum payment to Aberdeen, Inc. and enter into a payment plan, Aberdeen, Inc. will contact the Tulsa Clerk with a request to recall the warrant, which the Tulsa Clerk will do automatically. If a debtor misses a sufficient number of payments after a warrant has been recalled, Aberdeen, Inc. will contact the Tulsa Clerk’s office with a request that a debt-collection arrest warrant be re-issued. As a matter of course, the Tulsa Clerk and Cost Administrator assist in seeking warrants by putting Aberdeen, Inc.’s requests before the judge. As a matter of course, the Tulsa County Judges routinely issue debt-collection arrest warrants in response to Aberdeen, Inc.’s requests. The Tulsa County Judges’ actions accordingly make Aberdeen, Inc.’s threats to debtors to coerce payments credible.
46

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 47 of 102
127. The system is set up to fail, and it does. From 2008 to 2015, 43.5 percent of felony and misdemeanor cases arising in Tulsa County District Court resulted in the issuance of a debtcollection arrest warrant (and, as a result, transfer to Aberdeen, Inc. for collection).28 As of February 2017, there were over 22,000 active debt-collection arrest warrants issued from the Tulsa County District Court.
128. In Tulsa County, indigent people arrested on debt-collection arrest warrants are routinely taken to the county jail operated by the Tulsa Sheriff.29 The Tulsa Sheriff will not release these arrestees unless they pay the required $250. This money is not a “bond” that is even ostensibly intended to secure any future court appearance: if it is paid, it is applied to the debt, and the person never gets it back.
129. The Tulsa Sheriff imprisons those who cannot pay. They remain in jail until the Tulsa Sheriff brings the person to see a judge at the next in-custody “cost docket,” which occurs only on Tuesdays and Fridays. People arrested on debt-collection warrants are not appointed counsel. Instead, those who cannot pay the price of release simply wait until the next cost docket, potentially as long as four days (and longer if there is a holiday).
130. The “cost docket” hearing consists of an uncounseled conversation between the debtor, who appears via video link from jail, and Defendant Judge Moody. After the hearing, Judge Moody will, as a matter of course, release indigent debtors without further payment (unless they have other unrelated warrants) and set a review date for them to return to court.
28 Ryan Gentzler, Oklahoma’s Debtors’ Prisons Aren’t Just a Nuisance—They’re an Epidemic, Okla. Pol. Inst. (Jan. 30, 2018), https://okpolicy.org/oklahomas-debtors-prisons-arent-just-nuisance-theyre-epidemic/. 29 Arrests based solely on nonpayment continue in spite of the Tulsa Defendants’ knowledge of the wrongfulness of the practice. A Steering Committee on which Defendants Drummond and Musseman sat recommended ceasing arrests based solely on debt-collection arrest warrants. The recommendation was not implemented, and the arrests continue.
47

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 48 of 102
131. That these individuals are released as a matter of course after seeing Judge Moody further demonstrates that there is no conceivable, let alone compelling, government interest in their wealth-based detention and reveals that their detention for up to four days was intended to pressure them to pay court debts.
132. After release, the cycle of debt, threats, arrest, and incarceration resumes. ii. Rogers County
133. As in Tulsa County, criminal defendants in Rogers County are given only partial information about the fines and fees they owe by the Rogers County Judge at the time of plea and sentencing (which occur simultaneously). Numerous fees, labeled “costs,” are not added until the defendant reports to the Rogers Clerk’s office after she has been sentenced.30
134. After leaving the courtroom or being released from incarceration after any term of imprisonment imposed, the debtor must report to the Rogers Clerk’s office to set up a payment plan. The Rogers Clerk’s office conducts no meaningful inquiry into ability to pay before setting a plan. The Rogers Clerk regularly sets a minimum payment of $75 per month.
135. Debtors are provided a boilerplate form that informs them that they must report to the Rogers Clerk’s office on the date payment is due, if they are unable to pay. If a debtor so reports, she must explain to a Clerk’s office employee why she is unable to pay and provide any associated documentation to receive an extension of time to pay or a reduced payment plan. Although the Clerk’s office may allow a limited number of extensions, the Clerk will not waive or reduce court debts as a matter of policy.
30 Contrary to Oklahoma law, the Rogers County Judge does not hold a hearing or make any inquiry into ability to pay when assessing these fines and uncalculated fees. Nonetheless, the Rogers County Judge routinely checks the box on the “Rule 8 form” that indicates that the defendant is able to pay.
48

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 49 of 102
136. After three months of nonpayment, or if the debtor seeks too many extensions of time to pay (as determined at the discretion of the Rogers Clerk), the Rogers Clerk submits a boilerplate, bare-bones debt-collection arrest warrant application to a Rogers County Judge, who signs it as a matter of course. Other than the amount of money owed and nonpayment, no other information is provided by the Rogers Clerk to the Rogers County Judge, and no notice or opportunity to be heard is provided to the debtor. None of the information is provided under oath or affirmation.
137. The Rogers Clerk routinely seeks debt-collection arrest warrants in the face of evidence—such as the fact that the debtor was designated indigent and assigned a public defender—that the debtor lacks the ability to pay. The Rogers County Judge routinely issues warrants based on the Rogers Clerk’s misleading applications. The automatic $80 warrant fee is then added—in each case in which a warrant issues—and the Rogers Clerk uses its discretion to transfer the case to Aberdeen, Inc. for collection. The Clerk adds an additional 30 percent penalty surcharge to the total debt owed because of the transfer.
138. Once a case has been transferred to Aberdeen, Inc., it begins the extortionate collection activities described above in Section I.B-E. Aberdeen, Inc. sends boilerplate requests to the Rogers Clerk when it seeks to recall or issue a debt-collection arrest warrant. As a matter of course, the Rogers Clerk assists Aberdeen, Inc. in seeking warrants by putting Aberdeen, Inc.’s requests before the judge. As a matter of course, the Rogers County Judge recalls and issues debtcollection arrest warrants at the direction of Aberdeen, Inc., which is assisted by the Rogers Clerk, even though these requests lack any pre-deprivation process or sworn statements establishing probable cause.
49

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 50 of 102
139. Once a debtor is arrested on a debt-collection arrest warrant, she is brought to the County Jail, operated by the Rogers Sheriff. To get out, the arrestee is required to pay the total amount of court debts owed. As in Tulsa County, the predetermined payment does not function as a bond or bail amount, and it will not be returned. It is simply a cash payment to be applied to the amount owed by the debtor. As a result, the Rogers Sheriff releases those wealthy enough to pay, but detains in the jail those who are too poor to pay.
140. Imprisoned debtors who are too poor to pay remain in jail until a hearing occurs at the next “arraignment” setting, which occurs every weekday other than Wednesday. At the hearing, the debtor has a cursory uncounseled conversation with either Defendant Rogers County Judge or another judge (at one arraignment setting per week), depending on who is presiding that day. Defendant Rogers County Judge will ask the debtor if she can pay $100 and order those who are too poor to pay $100 to “sit it out” in jail at a rate of $25 per day. The continued detention is designed to coerce payment from the arrestee’s family and friends. These illegal policies enable Aberdeen, Inc. to credibly threaten Rogers County arrestees with extended detention pursuant to debt-collection arrest warrants in order to coerce increased payments that benefit each of the Defendants.
141. In both Tulsa and Rogers Counties, as well as many other counties across Oklahoma, judges, clerks, sheriffs, and other actors in the criminal legal system spend a large amount of their time and resources assigning court debts, collecting money, administering payment plans, and imprisoning debtors for nonpayment. The district courts’ intended purposes of adjudicating justice and preserving constitutional safeguards have been subordinated to the need to collect money to fund their own salaries and work activities and by their agreement to empower a financially interested for-profit actor to maximize revenue collection.
50

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 51 of 102
III. Oklahoma Funds Public Services Through Criminal Fines and Fees 142. The shift from courts of justice to courts of debt collection has occurred in
conjunction with, and exacerbated, an escalating expansion of Oklahoma’s criminal legal system. Massively inflated court debt and associated cycles of arrest have kept impoverished Oklahomans from extricating themselves from the criminal legal system, and contributed to Oklahoma’s skyrocketing incarceration rate, now second among all States. Oklahoma is predicted to have the highest rate of incarceration in the country by later this year.31
143. The increased pressure has created a negative feedback loop, in which more cases and imprisoned people place larger financial burdens on the criminal legal system, which then must seek new ways to fund its activities in the absence of increased tax revenue.
144. The primary mechanism used to generate funding is the subject of this lawsuit: a systematic shift of the burden of revenue raising to people convicted of crimes and traffic offenses through the assessment of new and increasing fees and costs (the amounts charged to defendants purportedly to account for the cost of administering their cases) and, in some cases, increasing fines (the penalties imposed for violating the law).
145. Fines and fees now fund a litany of government programs. 146. As discussed above, fines and fees pay for numerous court expenses, including security, drug court, mailing materials, court reporters, transcripts, courthouse maintenance, furniture, general supplies, and maintenance of the court’s information database. They also personally benefit judges, court clerks, and other court employees by contributing to their salaries and retirement.
31 Louisiana’s Criminal Justice Reforms Will Reduce Its Prison Population, Economist (July 6, 2017), https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/07/right-and-just.
51

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 52 of 102

147. Fines and fees also directly benefit the enforcement actors who make decisions in criminal and debt-collection cases, including money assessed directly to fund Sheriffs and prosecutors, as well as fees for the clerks performing administrative collection enforcement functions.
148. Fines and fees also fund numerous ancillary programs, including programs that bear little or no connection to the court system, such as the Trauma Care Revolving Fund, which is used to reimburse hospitals for the provision of uncompensated emergency services.
149. The vast majority of the fines and fees assessed are either new or have been increased since 1992. The following comparison of the debts imposed for a conviction for driving 16 miles over the speed limit32 illustrates how old fees have been inflated and new ones have been added over the last quarter century:

Fine Court Costs CLEET Penalty Assessment Law Library Automated Fingerprint Identification System Sheriff’s Fees Clerk’s Fees Oklahoma Court Information System Department of Public Safety Patrol Vehicle Fund District Attorney Council Prosecution Assessment Trauma Care Assistance Fund Sheriff’s Fee for Courthouse Security Forensic Science Improvement Assessment Court Clerk Administrative Fee on Collections Child Abuse Multidisciplinary Account Attorney General Victim Services unit

1992 $30 $49 $4 $3 $3 $5 $13 ---
--
-------

2016 $35 $88 $9 $6 $5 $5 -$25 $20
$20
$10 $10 $5 $8.50 $3 $3

32 For the purposes of collection of fines and fees, moving traffic violations are combined with criminal offenses under Oklahoma law. See Okla Stat. tit. 28, § 153 (“The clerks of courts shall collect as costs in every criminal case . . . except for standing and parking violations and for charges otherwise provided for by law.”).
52

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 53 of 102

District Court Administrative Fee Total

--

$12.75

$107.00 $265.25

150. These assessments are not limited to traffic offenses. A misdemeanor DUI in 2016

came with $1,328 in court fees—up from $407 in 1992, despite no increase in the underlying $200 fine.33

151. The fees for defendants who are incarcerated in county jails or sentenced to

supervision are even steeper. In most Oklahoma counties, defendants must pay a fee for each day

they are incarcerated in the county jail. In Oklahoma County, for instance, presumptively innocent

arrestees, jailed court debtors, and those serving shorter sentences in local jails are charged $32

per day (ironically, many of these people are in jail only because they are too poor to pay the amount of money required for their release).34

152. Anything more than the briefest periods of detention can result in insurmountable

debt that will be owed in perpetuity. Because debtors cannot pay these large amounts, once

released from custody, many debtors are forced to pay monthly “supervision fees” of $40 to the

District Attorney’s Office or the Department of Corrections—or more, if community service hours

are required by the sentence. Despite the name, “supervision fees” to the District Attorney’s Office

are typically not associated with any type of actual supervision by that Office.

153. People charged with crimes who are too poor to hire their own lawyer—i.e.,

members of the proposed classes in this case—must also pay for the lawyer appointed under

Oklahoma’s Indigent Defense Act. Every applicant must pay $40 to apply for a court-appointed

lawyer, and may thereafter be required to pay as much as $1,000 for their representation if the case

33 See The Cost Trap, supra note 22 at 3-5 (2017). 34 The $32 charge is as of February 2017. Oklahoma County recently hired Florida-based MGT of America Consulting LLC to perform an analysis of the county jail and to recommend a new daily fee. Oklahoma County will pay up to $20,000 for the analysis.
53

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 54 of 102
is a felony that proceeds to jury trial. The cycle of poverty, jailing, suspension of licenses, and related disruption of employment and family relationships means that the increased attempt to extract fines and fees has been self-defeating on its own terms. A study of the fines and fees collected in nine counties from 2003 to 2015 revealed that, despite the growing number and amount of these assessments, more money was collected in 2003 ($14.55 million) than in 2015 ($14.27 million), without any consideration of the significant increases in enforcement costs. And the totals for the intervening years show that the amount collected has, in effect, plateaued, as $15.5 million was collected in 2006, $14.35 million in 2009, and $14 million in 2012.
154. The contract with Aberdeen, Inc. and the extortionate enterprise it perpetuates are products of these increasingly desperate attempts to fund an unnecessarily bloated criminal legal system. Because of systemic and personal pressures, the governmental Defendants have allowed Aberdeen, Inc.’s unlawful activities to continue, and, as a result, Plaintiffs and members of the putative classes have suffered serious, persistent, and ongoing harms.
INJURY TO THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS 155. Plaintiff Carly Graff is a 40-year-old resident of Claremore, in Rogers County, where she lives with her two children, ages 6 and 10, and her boyfriend. 156. Ms. Graff is indigent. She has no job, and she depends on food stamps to support herself and her children. But what little she has is not enough. She often struggles to afford the basic necessities of life, including food, medicine, and clothing. Her refrigerator is often empty, she is at risk of falling behind on rent, and she is regularly past due on her utilities bills to such an extent that she fears her electricity will be cut off.
54

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 55 of 102
157. In May 2017, Ms. Graff was pulled over and ticketed for failing to properly use a car seat.35
158. Ms. Graff was assessed over $250 for the ticket, an unattainable amount in light of her poverty. Solely because she had not paid, the Rogers Clerk sought, and the Rogers County Judge issued, a debt-collection arrest warrant against her on October 18, 2017. The associated arrest warrant fee added $80 in fees to her total. The same day, the Rogers Clerk made the decision to transfer her debts to Aberdeen, Inc. for collection, adding the 30-percent penalty surcharge of $100.58. Neither the Rogers County Judge nor the Rogers Clerk provided Ms. Graff with notice before the Clerk sought and the Rogers County Judge issued the arrest warrant. The application for the arrest warrant did not contain sworn statements supporting any factual claim in the application and does not even contain unsworn assertions that would provide probable cause.
159. Ms. Graff has received four letters from Aberdeen, Inc. demanding payment and telling her that she may be arrested if she does not pay the company.
160. Ms. Graff cannot live a normal life because of the arrest warrant. She only leaves her home to take her children to their school bus stop. Otherwise, she remains at home for fear of being arrested.
161. Plaintiff Randy Frazier is a veteran and a 59-year-old resident of Tulsa, where he lives with his wife of 40 years.
162. Mr. Frazier is indigent. In November 2015, Mr. Frazier had a mini-stroke that limited his mobility and feeling. He has been unable to work since his mini-stroke, and he now receives Social Security disability payments. Even before his mini-stroke, Mr. Frazier had difficulty finding work: he could only secure odd jobs and struggled to make ends meet.
35 Because her daughter has eating issues, Ms. Graff had put her car seat in the front seat.
55

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 56 of 102
163. Mr. Frazier depends on his wife to fulfill basic tasks. She drives him when he needs to travel, performs basic chores on his behalf, monitors his medication, and arranges his appointments.
164. Mr. Frazier has multiple cases in which he has been unable to pay his court debt because of his poverty. In January 2017, the Cost Administrator and Tulsa Clerk sought and a Tulsa County Special Judge issued debt-collection arrest warrants in each case and assessed a separate $80 warrant fee for each of the cases. The Tulsa Clerk and Tulsa Cost Administrator then decided to transfer the case to Aberdeen, Inc. and assessed a 30-percent penalty. Mr. Frazier now owes more than $10,000.
165. Mr. Frazier cannot afford to pay Aberdeen, Inc. the amounts it has demanded. At one point, Aberdeen, Inc. demanded that Mr. Frazier pay $250 to have the arrest warrant recalled. After explaining that he did not have $250, Mr. Frazier offered to pay $125 in two consecutive months. Aberdeen, Inc. refused and informed him that it would leave the arrest warrant in place.
166. Mr. Frazier informed Aberdeen, Inc. of his medical issues, but Aberdeen, Inc. continued to demand payment and threaten arrest.
167. Aberdeen, Inc. contacted Mr. Frazier’s daughter, telling her that if money was not paid on her father’s case, he would be arrested.
168. Aberdeen, Inc. has also sent letters to Mr. Frazier that demand payment and tell him that he may be arrested if he does not pay.
169. Plaintiff David Smith is a 32-year-old resident of Tulsa, Oklahoma. He lives with his girlfriend and her three children. He also has a son from a previous relationship.
170. Mr. Smith is indigent. He currently earns approximately $1,200 a month, though the amount fluctuates because his work as a landscaper is seasonal. Mr. Smith uses this money to
56

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 57 of 102
support himself, to help support his girlfriend and her children, and to pay child support to assist his own son.
171. Mr. Smith owes court debt in two cases. When he was first released from prison, Aberdeen, Inc. demanded $100 in monthly payments notwithstanding that Mr. Smith informed it that he had just been released from prison and had no money.
172. After finding work, Mr. Smith began making monthly payments. When he lost his job and missed payments, Aberdeen, Inc. began threatening him that he would be arrested if he did not pay.
173. Once he could find the money, out of fear of arrest, Mr. Smith began paying Aberdeen, Inc. again, sometimes instead of obtaining basic necessities. Within the past year, Mr. Smith was coerced by threats of arrest to pay money to Aberdeen, Inc. that he otherwise would have paid in child support. This caused him to be denied visitation with his son.
174. Mr. Smith has experienced stress and anxiety because of Aberdeen, Inc.’s threats of arrest. He fears for himself and for his family, which he worries will not be able to support itself if he is in jail.
175. Mr. Smith has asked Aberdeen, Inc. if he can pay the Tulsa District Court directly, and Aberdeen, Inc. has informed him that he cannot and must pay Aberdeen, Inc. Last year, Aberdeen, Inc. stopped sending receipts of Mr. Smith’s payments, contrary to his requests. Mr. Smith has asked for an accounting of what he owes, but Aberdeen, Inc. has refused.
176. Plaintiff Linda Meachum is a 58-year-old resident of Tulsa, Oklahoma. 177. Ms. Meachum is indigent. Her only income is $194 per month in food stamps and $50 per month for helping an elderly neighbor with laundry and cooking. She is unable to do more rigorous work because of medical problems resulting from being a survivor of domestic violence.
57

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 58 of 102
178. In 2012, the Tulsa Clerk decided to transfer the court debt from Ms. Meachum’s 2007 Tulsa County shoplifting conviction to Aberdeen, Inc. for collection. When Ms. Meachum was unable to pay, Aberdeen, Inc. sought a debt-collection arrest warrant, the Tulsa Clerk and Cost Administrator assisted in seeking the warrant by processing the request, and a judge issued the warrant without inquiry into the reasons for nonpayment.
179. In 2014, Ms. Meachum was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance and traffic violations, and was forced to pay an additional $200 to be released because of the debt-collection arrest warrant from her previous case.
180. Ms. Meachum has no money to pay Aberdeen, Inc., and fears that she will be arrested for nonpayment of court debt.
181. Plaintiff Kendallia Killman is a 48-year-old resident of Norman, Oklahoma. 182. Ms. Killman is indigent. Ms. Killman’s only income is a monthly disability benefit of $543 that she receives as the caretaker of her intellectually disabled adult son, which she uses to provide him basic necessities. 183. In 2009, the Cleveland County district court imposed fines and fees against Ms. Killman for two misdemeanor charges. In 2015, the court clerk decided to transfer the case to Aberdeen, Inc. for collection. 184. Because of her poverty, Ms. Killman has been and still is unable to pay her court debt. Ms. Killman was arrested twice as a result of warrants issued related to her court debt.36 Aberdeen, Inc. has demanded a lump sum payment of $1,000 to recall her warrants. Despite the fact that Ms. Killman has repeatedly informed the company that she does not have any income of her own, Aberdeen, Inc. employees continued to threaten her that she would be jailed if she did
36 Although the warrants purport to be for failure to attend court dates regarding payment of court debt, Ms. Killman never received actual notice of those court dates and not was validly summoned to court.
58

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 59 of 102
not pay. The latest warrant was sought by Aberdeen, Inc. and issued by the court in August, 2017.37
185. Ms. Killman cannot afford to pay Aberdeen, Inc. to have her warrant recalled, and lives in constant fear that she will be arrested and there will be nobody to care for her son, who will not be able to care for himself if she is arrested without warning.
186. Plaintiff Christopher Choate is a 40-year-old resident of Tulsa, Oklahoma. 187. Mr. Choate is indigent. His only form of steady income is federal disability benefits, which will soon be reduced from approximately $800 per month to $588 per month. 188. Mr. Choate uses his disability money to support himself, to help support his wife and her 15-month-old grandson, and to pay child support. 189. Mr. Choate owes court debt on a Tulsa County criminal conviction from 2007. He has been making payments toward his court debt since he was released from prison in 2009. Because of his limited income, he has struggled to pay. 190. Tulsa County issued a first debt-collection arrest warrant in 2012, which he was able to pay to have recalled, and another in June 2014 when he fell behind on payments, after which the Tulsa Clerk decided to transfer his case to Aberdeen, Inc. for collection and added a 30percent penalty surcharge. He was arrested on the warrant and spent the night in jail. 191. When Mr. Choate’s father contacted the Tulsa Clerk about his arrest, he was told he would need to get in touch with Aberdeen, Inc. to pay for his son’s release. 192. Despite his indigence, Aberdeen, Inc. set Mr. Choate’s payment plan at $50 per month after his release, and told him that he would be arrested again if he did not pay.
37 The most recent warrant, on its face, purports to be for failure to obey a court order to contact Aberdeen, Inc. However, not only did Ms. Killman contact Aberdeen, Inc. within the timeframe required by the court order, she also has been in repeated contact with the company both before and after the warrant was issued.
59

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 60 of 102
193. Because of Aberdeen, Inc.’s threats, Mr. Choate has continued to pay Aberdeen, Inc., often having to decide between taking care of his family or paying the company. Mr. Choate is afraid that he will get arrested again if he does not pay Aberdeen, Inc. every month.
194. Plaintiff Ira Lee Wilkins is a 36-year-old resident of Tulsa, Oklahoma, who is currently incarcerated in the Oklahoma State Reformatory Work Center in Granite, Oklahoma.
195. Mr. Wilkins is indigent. 196. In March 2017, the Wagoner County District Court issued a debt-collection arrest warrant against Mr. Wilkins. Aberdeen, Inc. demanded that Mr. Wilkins pay $900 for Aberdeen, Inc. to recall the warrant. 197. Mr. Wilkins’s fiancée then contacted Aberdeen, Inc. in November 2017 in an attempt to get Aberdeen, Inc. to recall the warrant. During a phone call, an Aberdeen, Inc. employee stated that, because Mr. Wilkins was incarcerated, her supervisor allowed her to lower the lump sum payment to $200. 198. Mr. Wilkins’ fiancée stated multiple times that Mr. Wilkins had no income and could not pay. The employee responded that Aberdeen, Inc. exercised control over the recall of the warrant and that, notwithstanding Mr. Wilkins’s lack of income, it would not recall the warrant without a lump sum payment. Mr. Wilkins’ fiancée eventually paid Aberdeen, Inc. to have the warrant recalled. 199. Mr. Wilkins still owes thousands of dollars in court debt. He has no job prospects for when he is released, will have no income, and will not be able to make payments to Aberdeen, Inc. 200. Plaintiff Melanie Holmes is a 41-year-old woman. 201. Ms. Holmes has struggled for years to pay court debt owed in multiple cases.
60

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 61 of 102
202. After being released from her most recent prison sentence in 2011, Ms. Holmes was able to secure low-paying jobs on and off until 2015. During that time her income varied, but when she was employed, she earned approximately $1500 per month. Even when combined with her husband’s earnings, the couple never made more than approximately $3,000 in a single month. That income was used to support not only Ms. Holmes and her husband, but also Ms. Holmes’ disabled daughter and, at times, her other daughter, now 25 years old, and her son, now 21 years old.
203. Notwithstanding her minimal income during that time, Ms. Holmes still made payments to Aberdeen, Inc. that forced her to struggle to the meet basic necessities of life. She did so because Aberdeen, Inc. threatened that she would be arrested if she did not pay, and Ms. Holmes was “scared to death” of being arrested. Ms. Holmes at times paid Aberdeen, Inc. at the expense of obtaining groceries for herself and her family because she feared arrest.
204. Ms. Holmes repeatedly explained to Aberdeen, Inc. that she could not afford to pay. Despite these explanations, the company did nothing, continuing to demand payments and refusing to adjust her payment plans and lump sum payments to accommodate her ability to pay. In one instance, an Aberdeen, Inc. employee informed Ms. Holmes that she should go directly to court to see a judge instead of dealing with the company, but before doing so, the employee told Ms. Holmes that, under company policy, he was not supposed to share that information with her.
205. In 2015, Ms. Holmes lost her job and was unable to find new work. In an attempt to generate some income, she repaired furniture and sold items at flea markets. Often, she would make zero dollars in an entire week. Because of their poverty, she and her husband were evicted from their home and became homeless. They were forced to live out of their car and friends’ homes when they could find one. Because Ms. Holmes lacked a permanent place to live and could
61

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 62 of 102
no longer afford to care for her youngest daughter, she had to leave her in the care of the daughter’s father. During this time, Aberdeen, Inc. continued calling Ms. Holmes and demanding payment on a near-daily basis, telling her that she could be jailed if she did not pay the company.
206. In August 2016, the Rogers Clerk sought, and Judge Crosson issued, a debtcollection arrest warrant for Ms. Holmes in her Rogers County case. No inquiry was conducted into Ms. Holmes’ ability to pay prior to the issuance of the arrest warrant. The warrant application contains no sworn statement or other information establishing probable cause, or any information whatsoever other than the letters “FTP BW” (which, presumably, stands for “failure to pay bench warrant”).
207. In October 2016 in Tulsa County, Aberdeen, Inc. requested a debt-collection arrest warrant, the Tulsa Clerk’s Office transmitted the warrant to a Tulsa County District Judge, and the judge issued the warrant. The public docket states, “DID NOT PAY ABERDEEN, 2ND BENCH WARRANT ISSUED, DO NOT RELEASE.”
208. Ms. Holmes was arrested on the Tulsa County debt-collection arrest warrant in December 2016. At the time of her arrest, Ms. Holmes’s husband was injured and unable to work, Ms. Holmes and her husband had no income and were living out of their car, and Ms. Holmes had left her youngest daughter with her daughter’s father.
209. An Order of Commitment signed by an employee of the Tulsa Clerk on December 2, 2016, directed the Tulsa Sheriff that Ms. Holmes would have to pay $500 to be released. No judicial officer signed the document, and in the line for the signature of “COURT/JUDGE,” all that is written is “Cost.” Because Ms. Holmes could not afford to pay $500, she was detained in a jail cell until December 8, when she was finally brought to see a judge.
62

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 63 of 102
210. The judge released Ms. Holmes that day. No inquiry was made into Ms. Holmes’s ability to pay, and the Judge simply directed Ms. Holmes to contact Aberdeen, Inc. to set up a payment plan.
211. As ordered, Ms. Holmes contacted Aberdeen, Inc. Aberdeen, Inc., however, refused to allow Ms. Holmes to set up a payment plan because of her debt-collection arrest warrant from Rogers County. Aberdeen, Inc., instead, demanded that Ms. Holmes pay hundreds of dollars to have her warrant from Rogers County recalled, despite Ms. Holmes having explained her situation and that she could not afford to pay.
212. In August 2017, struggling to support herself and her family, Ms. Holmes left Oklahoma to live with her sister-in-law. She and her husband took a bus to Oregon with nothing more than the bags they could carry, where they now live with her youngest daughter.
213. Ms. Holmes’s other children and family members still live in Oklahoma, but she is afraid to return because of her debt-collection arrest warrants.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 214. 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. 215. A class action is a superior means, and the only practicable means, by which Plaintiffs and unknown Class members can challenge the Defendants’ unlawful debt-collection scheme, detention policies, and warrant-execution practices. 216. Plaintiffs seek to certify the following four classes:
• Aberdeen, Inc. Prospective Relief Class. Plaintiffs propose the following Class for which they seek declaratory and injunctive relief: All persons who owe or who will incur court debts arising from traffic, misdemeanor, and
63

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 64 of 102
felony cases in Oklahoma courts and whose debt Aberdeen, Inc. is or will be attempting to collect pursuant to an agreement with the Sheriff Defendants and the Sheriffs’ Association. This class will be referred to as the “Aberdeen, Inc. Prospective Relief Class.”38 • Damages Class. Plaintiffs propose the following class for which they seek monetary damages: All persons who have been subjected to Defendants’ debt collections practices as a result of court debts arising from traffic, misdemeanor, and felony cases in Oklahoma courts. This class will be referred to as the “Damages Class.”39 • Tulsa Court Debt Prospective Relief Class. Plaintiffs propose the following Class for which they seek declaratory and injunctive relief: All persons who owe court debt from a traffic, misdemeanor, or felony case arising in the Tulsa County District Court and who are or will be unable to pay that debt. This Class will be referred to as the “Tulsa Court Debt Prospective Relief Class.”40 • Rogers Court Debt Prospective Relief Class. Plaintiffs propose the following Class for which they seek declaratory and injunctive relief: All persons who owe court debt from a traffic, misdemeanor, or felony case arising in the Rogers County District Court and who are or will be unable to pay that debt. This Class will be referred to as the “Rogers Court Debt Prospective Relief
38 The named Plaintiffs representing the Aberdeen, Inc. Prospective Relief Class are: Carly Graff, Randy Frazier, David Smith, Ira Wilkins, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, Melanie Holmes, and Christopher Choate. 39 The named Plaintiffs representing the Damages Class are: Carly Graff, David Smith, Randy Frazier, Ira Wilkins, Kendallia Killman, Linda Meachum, Melanie Holmes, and Christopher Choate. 40 The named Plaintiffs representing the Tulsa Court Debt Prospective Relief Class are: Christopher, Randy Frazier, Choate, David Smith, Linda Meachum, Melanie Holmes, and Ira Wilkins.
64

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 65 of 102
Class.”41 The Aberdeen Class
A. Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) 217. Joinder of all members of the proposed Aberdeen Class would be impracticable. 218. Aberdeen, Inc. is in charge of collecting the debt of thousands of people who owe court debt from fines and fees assessed in criminal and traffic cases in Oklahoma District Courts. These people, collectively, make up the Aberdeen Class. 219. The names, case numbers, financial receipts, and relevant records of the Aberdeen Class members are in the possession of the Defendants and are easily ascertainable. 220. Defendants have followed and continue to follow materially the same policies, practices, and procedures with respect to all members of the proposed Class. 221. Those who still owe debt collected by Aberdeen, Inc. or who will incur such debt will be subjected to the same ongoing policies and practices absent the relief sought in this Complaint.
B. Commonality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) 222. 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 declaratory relief concerning whether the Defendants’ policies, practices, and procedures violated their rights and injunctive relief requiring that those policies, practices and procedures be changed to protect their rights in the future. 223. Among the most important, but not the only, common questions of fact are:
• Whether the Sheriffs’ Association and Aberdeen, Inc. contracted for the provision of debt collection services by Aberdeen, Inc.;
41 The named Plaintiffs representing the Rogers Court Debt Prospective Relief Class are: Carly Graff and Melanie Holmes.
65

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 66 of 102
• How Aberdeen, Inc. earns its profits and what fees it charges pursuant to the contractual arrangement;
• How Aberdeen, Inc. credits the accounts of persons from whom Aberdeen, Inc. collects debt;
• What role Aberdeen, Inc. plays in seeking arrest warrants; • What role Aberdeen, Inc. plays in the recall of arrest warrants; • What policies and practices, if any, Aberdeen, Inc. uses to determine indigency; • How, if at all, Aberdeen, Inc. accounts for indigency when setting payment plans; • Whether Aberdeen, Inc. demands a lump sum payment when a case is transferred
to exploit the consequences of an outstanding warrant; • Whether Aberdeen, Inc. has collected money from indigent debtors based on threats
of arrest; • What role Aberdeen, Inc. plays in setting “bond” for persons arrested for
nonpayment; and • The basic facts surrounding all of Aberdeen, Inc.’s policies and practices relating
to collecting debts, communicating with debtors, and agreements with government officials.
224. Among the most important, but not the only, common questions of law are:
• Whether it is lawful to seek, obtain, and enforce arrest warrants based solely on nonpayment without any pre-deprivation process or inquiry into ability to pay;
• Whether it is lawful to seek, obtain, and enforce arrest warrants based solely on non-payment without sworn factual assertions supporting probable cause to arrest for any offense and relying on material omissions of critical facts that demonstrate indigence;
• Whether a government and a private for-profit company, working together, can circumvent state debt-collection protections by using onerous collection methods that no private creditor could lawfully use;
• Whether it is lawful to detain a person after arrest because the person cannot afford to pay a preset monetary payment without any inquiry into ability to pay or any other findings;
• Whether it is lawful to use legal process purportedly concerning the collection of fines and fees with the ulterior motive to earn profit;
• Whether Aberdeen, Inc., Defendants Jim and Rob Shofner, the Sheriffs’ Association, and the Sheriff Defendants for the purpose of collecting court debt constitutes a RICO enterprise; and
• Whether Aberdeen, Inc., Defendants Jim and Rob Shofner, the Sheriffs’ Association, and the Sheriff Defendants collection of payment using threats of unlawful arrest constitutes extortionate activity for the purposes of RICO predicate offenses.
225. These common legal and factual questions arise from Defendants’ ongoing
contractual relationship and association in fact. Defendants operate this debt-collection scheme
66

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 67 of 102
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 relief that they seek.
C. Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) 226. The named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the proposed Class, and they have the same interests in this case as all other members of the Class that they represent. Each of them suffered or will suffer injuries from the failure of the Defendants to comply with the basic constitutional and statutory provisions detailed below. The answer to whether the Defendants’ scheme is unlawful in the ways alleged will determine the claims of the named Plaintiffs and every other member of the Class. 227. If the named Plaintiffs succeed in their claims that the Defendants’ policies and practices concerning debt collection, detention, and warrants violate the law in the ways alleged in the Complaint, then that ruling will likewise benefit every other member of the Class.
D. Adequacy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) 228. The named Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class because they are members of the Class and because their interests coincide with, and are not antagonistic to, those of the Class. There are no known conflicts of interest among members of the Class, all of whom have a similar interest in vindicating the constitutional and statutory rights to which they are entitled. 229. The named Plaintiffs are represented by experienced and adequate class counsel, including Dan Smolen, Jill Webb, and attorneys from the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at the Georgetown University Law Center, and Civil Rights Corps, who have extensive experience litigating complex class action cases involving similar practices in federal
67

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 68 of 102
court in other states. E. Rule 23(b)(2)
230. Certification of a Class is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) because Defendants, through their policies, practices, and procedures regarding debt collection, detention, and warrants have acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class. Thus, a declaration that the policy, pattern, and practice of seeking, issuing, and executing arrest warrants based solely on non-payment without any pre-deprivation process or inquiry into ability to pay such warrants violates the Constitution would benefit every member of the proposed Class. The same applies to legal rulings on the other claims, including: that they are entitled to a neutral administrator of their debt-collection proceedings who has no personal financial conflict of interest in infringing their liberty; that the arrangement and the Defendants’ policies and practices violate the Equal Protection Clause by employing debt-collection methods far more onerous than any private creditor could lawfully impose; that the policy, pattern, and practice of threats to jail people for nonpayment without informing them of their legal rights or inquiring into their ability to pay constitutes an extortion enterprise in violation of racketeering laws; that the scheme to seek, issue, and execute arrest warrants based solely on non-payment violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; and that Aberdeen, Inc. abuses process by commandeering specific legal processes for the ulterior motive of earning profit.
231. Injunctive relief compelling the Aberdeen Class Defendants to comply with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments will similarly protect each member of the Class from being subjected to the Defendants’ unlawful policies and practices with respect to warrants, arrests, and jailing and protect those against whom an arrest warrant would issue in the future. Therefore, declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a whole is appropriate.
68

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 69 of 102
The Damages Class
A. Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)
232. Joinder of all members of the proposed Damages Class would be impracticable.
233. Defendants have subjected thousands of people to their extortionate practices when
attempting to collect court debt from people who have been assessed fines and fees assessed in
criminal and traffic cases in Oklahoma District Courts. These people make up the Damages Class.
234. The names, financial receipts, and relevant records of the Damages Class members
are in the possession of the Defendants and are easily ascertainable.
235. Defendants have followed and continue to follow materially the same policies,
practices, and procedures with respect to all members of the proposed Class.
B. Commonality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2)
236. 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.
237. Among the most important, but not the only, common questions of fact are:
• Whether the Sheriffs’ Association and Aberdeen, Inc. contracted for the provision of debt collection services by Aberdeen, Inc.;
• How Aberdeen, Inc. earns its profits and what fees it charges pursuant to the contractual arrangement;
• How Aberdeen, Inc. credits the accounts of persons from whom Aberdeen, Inc. collects debt;
• What role Aberdeen, Inc. plays in seeking arrest warrants; • What role Aberdeen, Inc. plays in the recall of arrest warrants; • Whether the Tulsa Clerk and Tulsa Cost Administrator’s warrant applications are
supported by sworn statements; • Whether the Tulsa and Rogers County Sheriffs detain people who have been
arrested for nonpayment if they cannot afford to pay a cash amount; • What policies and practices, if any, Aberdeen, Inc. uses to determine indigency; • How, if at all, Aberdeen, Inc. accounts for indigency when setting payment plans; • Whether Aberdeen, Inc. demands a lump sum payment when a case is transferred
to exploit the consequences of an outstanding warrant; • Whether Aberdeen, Inc. has collected money from indigent debtors based on threats
of arrest;
69

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 70 of 102
• What role Aberdeen, Inc. plays in setting “bond” for persons arrested for nonpayment; and
• The basic facts surrounding all of Aberdeen, Inc.’s policies and practices relating to collecting debts, communicating with debtors, and agreements with government officials.
238. Among the most important, but not the only, common questions of law are:
• Whether it is lawful to seek, obtain, and enforce arrest warrants based solely on non-payment without any pre-deprivation process or inquiry into ability to pay;
• Whether it is lawful to seek, obtain, and enforce arrest warrants based solely on non-payment without sworn factual assertions supporting probable cause to arrest for any offense and relying on material omissions of critical facts that demonstrate indigence;
• Whether a government and a private for-profit company, working together, can circumvent state debt-collection protections by using onerous collection methods that no private creditor could lawfully use;
• Whether it is lawful to detain a person after arrest because the person cannot afford to pay a preset monetary payment without any inquiry into ability to pay or any other findings;
• Whether it is lawful to use legal process purportedly concerning the collection of fines and fees with the ulterior motive to earn profit;
• Whether the Tulsa and Rogers Clerks and the Tulsa Cost Administrator have violated Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights;
• Whether the Tulsa and Rogers Clerks and/or the Tulsa Cost Administrator are county policy makers;
• Whether Aberdeen, Inc., Defendants Jim and Rob Shofner, the Sheriffs’ Association, and the Sheriff Defendants for the purpose of collecting court debt constitutes a RICO enterprise; and
• Whether Aberdeen, Inc., Defendants Jim and Rob Shofner, the Sheriffs’ Association, and the Sheriff Defendants collection of payment using threats of unlawful arrest constitutes extortionate activity for the purposes of RICO predicate offenses.
239. These common legal and factual questions arise from Defendants’ ongoing
contractual relationship and association in fact and ongoing efforts to collect court debt.
Defendants operate this debt-collection 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 relief that they seek.
70

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 71 of 102
C. Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) 240. The named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the proposed Class, and they have the same interests in this case as all other members of the Class that they represent. Each of them suffered injuries from the failure of the Defendants to comply with the basic constitutional and statutory provisions detailed below. The answer to whether the Defendants’ scheme is unlawful in the ways alleged will determine the claims of the named Plaintiffs and every other member of the Class. 241. If the named Plaintiffs succeed in their claims that the Defendants’ policies and practices concerning debt collection, detention, and warrants violate the law in the ways alleged in the Complaint, then that ruling will likewise benefit every other member of the Class.
D. Adequacy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) 242. The named Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class because they are members of the Class and because their interests coincide with, and are not antagonistic to, those of the Class. There are no known conflicts of interest among members of the Class, all of whom have a similar interest in vindicating the constitutional and statutory rights to which they are entitled. 243. The named Plaintiffs are represented by experienced and adequate class counsel, including Dan Smolen, Jill Webb, and attorneys from the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at the Georgetown University Law Center, and Civil Rights Corps, who have extensive experience litigating complex class action cases involving similar practices in federal court in other states.
E. Rule 23(b)(3) 244. Class treatment is also appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3) because the common
71

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 72 of 102
questions of law and fact overwhelmingly predominate in this case. This case turns, for every named Class representative, as well as for the members of the Class, on what the Defendants’ policies and practices are and on whether those policies are lawful.
245. The common questions of law and fact listed above are dispositive questions in the case of every member of the Class. The question of liability can therefore be determined on a class-wide basis. Class-wide treatment of liability is a far superior method of determining the content and legality of the Defendants’ policies and practices than individual suits by the thousands of people who have been subjected to Defendants’ debt collection practices. To the extent that individual damages will vary, they will vary depending in large part on the amount of time that a person was subjected to the unlawful scheme and the amount of money extorted from them or obtained through abuse of process. Determining damages for individual Class members can thus typically be handled in a ministerial fashion based on easily verifiable records in the Defendants’ possession. If need be, individual hearings on Class-member specific damages based on special circumstances and particular hardships endured as a result of Defendants’ debt collection practices 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.
The Tulsa Court Debt Class A. Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)
246. Joinder of all members of the proposed Tulsa Court Debt Class would be impracticable.
247. The members of the proposed Tulsa Court Debt Class are not known but number in the thousands. Debt-collection arrest warrants issue in Tulsa County without any inquiry into the warrant subject’s ability to pay. As of February 2017, there were over 22,000 active,
72

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 73 of 102
unexecuted debt-collection arrest warrants.
248. The names, case numbers, dates of warrants, and other relevant records of the Tulsa
Court Debt Class members are in the possession of Defendants and are easily ascertainable.
B. Commonality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2)
249. The relief sought is common to all members of the Tulsa Court Debt Class, and
common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class. The Plaintiffs seek relief
concerning whether the Tulsa County Judges, the Tulsa Clerk, the Tulsa Cost Administrator, and
the Sheriff Defendants’ (the “Tulsa Court Debt Defendants”) policies, practices, and procedures
violated their rights, and relief requiring that those policies, practices, and procedures be changed
to protect their rights in the future.
250. Among the most important, but not the only, common questions of fact are:
• Whether any meaningful inquiry into ability to pay is made at the time a debtcollection arrest warrant issues;
• Whether any meaningful inquiry into ability to pay is made at the time a payment plan is set;
• Whether debt-collection arrest warrants in Tulsa issue on the basis of sworn statements;
• Whether people are held in Tulsa County Jail on debt-collection arrest warrants pursuant to a predetermined cash ransom amount;
• Whether the Tulsa County Sheriff detains people who cannot afford that cash ransom;
• Whether the Tulsa Sheriff’s detention policies are necessary to ensure court appearances; and
• Whether the Tulsa Sheriff’s detention policies advance public safety.
251. Among the most important common questions of law are:
• Whether due process requires pre-deprivation process and an inquiry into ability to pay prior to arrest and confinement in jail based solely on nonpayment of a monetary sum;
• Whether an arrest warrant issued without any inquiry into ability to pay lacks probable cause;
• Whether an application for an arrest warrant requires the factual allegations to be based on oath or affirmation;
• Whether Defendants may seek, issue, and execute arrest warrants for non-payment
73

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 74 of 102
by making material omissions concerning the inability of a debtor to pay the amount required; • Whether issuing and executing a warrant for nonpayment without any inquiry into ability to pay or consideration of alternatives violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; • Whether the Tulsa County Sheriff can lawfully detain a person in jail solely because the person cannot pay a cash ransom; and • Whether there is an obligation to inquire into an arrestee’s ability to pay before setting the amount of a cash ransom. C. Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) 252. Plaintiffs Christopher Choate, Randy Frazier, David Smith, Linda Meachum, Ira Wilkins, and Melanie Holmes’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Tulsa Court Debt Class, and they have the same interests in this case as all other members of the Class that they represent. Each of them has suffered or is imminently at risk of suffering injuries from the Tulsa Court Debt Defendants’ practice of seeking, issuing, and executing warrants solely because a person has not made monetary payments, without a determination of ability to pay and an opportunity to be heard, and from those Defendants’ practice of detaining people in jail because of nonpayment of $250, without a determination of ability to pay and an opportunity to be heard. The answer to whether these practices are unlawful in the ways alleged will determine the claims of the named Plaintiffs and every other member of the Class. 253. If the named Plaintiffs succeed in their claims that the Tulsa Court Debt Defendants’ policies and practices concerning detention violate the law in the ways alleged, then that ruling will likewise benefit every other member of the Class. D. Adequacy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) 254. The named Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class because they are members of the Class and because their interests coincide with, and are not antagonistic to, those of the Class. There are no known conflicts of interest among members of the Class, all of whom
74

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 75 of 102
have a similar interest in vindicating the constitutional and statutory rights to which they are entitled.
E. Rule 23(b)(2) 255. Certification of this Class is appropriate because the Tulsa Court Debt Defendants, through the policies, practices, and procedures regarding seeking, issuing, and executing debtcollection arrest warrants that have issued without any inquiry into ability to pay and jailing people for nonpayment of $250 without any inquiry into ability to pay, have acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class. Thus, a declaration that the policy, pattern, and practice of seeking, issuing, and executing such warrants violates the Constitution would benefit every member of the proposed Class. 256. Injunctive relief compelling the Tulsa Court Debt Defendants to comply with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments will similarly protect each member of the Class from being subjected to the Defendants’ unlawful policies and practices with respect to warrants, arrests, and jailing and protect those against whom an arrest warrant would issue in the future. Therefore, declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a whole is appropriate. The Rogers Court Debt Class
A. Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) 257. Joinder of all members of the proposed Rogers Court Debt Class would be impracticable. 258. The members of the proposed Rogers Court Debt Class are not known but number in the hundreds and possibly thousands. Debt-collection arrest warrants issue in Rogers County without any inquiry into the warrant subject’s ability to pay. 259. The names, case numbers, dates of warrants, and other relevant records of the
75

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 76 of 102
Rogers Court Debt Class members are in the possession of Defendants and are easily ascertainable.
B. Commonality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2)
260. The relief sought is common to all members of the Rogers Court Debt Class, and
common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class. The Plaintiffs seek relief
concerning whether the Rogers County Judge, the Rogers Clerk, and the Sheriff Defendants’ (the
“Rogers Court Debt Defendants”) policies, practices, and procedures violated their rights, and
relief requiring that those policies, practices, and procedures be changed to protect their rights in
the future.
261. Among the most important, but not the only, common questions of fact are:
• Whether any meaningful inquiry into ability to pay is made at the time a debtcollection arrest warrant issues;
• Whether any meaningful inquiry into ability to pay is made at the time a payment plan is set;
• Whether debt-collection arrest warrants in Tulsa issue on the basis of sworn statements;
• Whether people are held in Rogers County Jail on debt-collection arrest warrants pursuant to a predetermined cash ransom amount;
• Whether the Rogers County Sheriff detains people who cannot afford that cash ransom;
• Whether the Rogers Sheriff’s detention policies are necessary to ensure court appearances; and
• Whether the Rogers Sheriff’s detention policies advance public safety.
262. Among the most important common questions of law are:
• Whether due process requires pre-deprivation process and an inquiry into ability to pay prior to arrest and confinement in jail based solely on nonpayment of a monetary sum;
• Whether an arrest warrant issued without any inquiry into ability to pay lacks probable cause;
• Whether an application for an arrest warrant requires the factual allegations to be based on oath or affirmation;
• Whether Defendants may seek, issue, and execute arrest warrants for non-payment by making material omissions concerning the inability of a debtor to pay the amount required;
• Whether issuing and executing a warrant for nonpayment without any inquiry into ability to pay or consideration of alternatives violates the Fourth and Fourteenth
76

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 77 of 102
Amendments; • Whether the Rogers County Sheriff can lawfully detain a person in jail solely
because the person cannot pay a cash ransom; and • Whether there is an obligation to inquire into an arrestee’s ability to pay before
setting the amount of a cash ransom. C. Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) 263. Plaintiffs Carly Graff and Melanie Holmes’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Rogers Court Debt Class, and they have the same interests in this case as all other members of the Class that they represent. Each of them has suffered or is imminently at risk of suffering injuries from the Rogers Court Debt Defendants’ practice of seeking, issuing, and executing warrants solely because a person has not made monetary payments, without a determination of ability to pay and an opportunity to be heard, and from those Defendants’ practice of detaining people in jail because of nonpayment of the amount owed in court debt in cash, without a determination of ability to pay and an opportunity to be heard. The answer to whether these practices are unlawful in the ways alleged will determine the claims of the named Plaintiffs and every other member of the Class. 264. If the named Plaintiffs succeed in their claims that the Rogers Court Debt Defendants’ policies and practices concerning detention violate the law in the ways alleged, then that ruling will likewise benefit every other member of the Class. D. Adequacy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) 265. The named Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class because they are members of the Class and because their interests coincide with, and are not antagonistic to, those of the Class. There are no known conflicts of interest among members of the Class, all of whom have a similar interest in vindicating the constitutional and statutory rights to which they are entitled.
77

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 78 of 102
E. Rule 23(b)(2) 266. Certification of this Class is appropriate because the Rogers Court Debt Defendants, through the policies, practices, and procedures regarding seeking, issuing, and executing debt-collection arrest warrants that have issued without any inquiry into ability to pay and jailing people for nonpayment of the amount owed in court debt in cash without any inquiry into ability to pay, have acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class. Thus, a declaration that the policy, pattern, and practice of seeking, issuing, and executing such warrants violates the Constitution would benefit every member of the proposed Class. 267. Injunctive relief compelling the Rogers Court Debt Defendants to comply with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments will similarly protect each member of the Class from being subjected to the Defendants’ unlawful policies and practices with respect to warrants, arrests, and jailing and will protect those against whom an arrest warrant would issue in the future. Therefore, declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a whole is appropriate. Rule 23(g) 268. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Smolen, Smolen & Roytman PLLC, J Webb Law Firm PLLC, Civil Rights Corps, and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University Law Center, who collectively have experience in litigating complex civil rights matters in federal court and extensive knowledge of both the details of the Defendants’ scheme and the relevant constitutional and statutory law. 269. Counsels’ efforts have so far included extensive investigation over a period of months, including numerous interviews with witnesses, government employees, former jail inmates, families, attorneys practicing in Oklahoma, community members, and experts in the functioning of Oklahoma’s criminal justice system.
78

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 79 of 102
270. Counsel have also observed numerous courtroom hearings in Oklahoma District Courts in order to compile a detailed understanding of state law and practices as they relate to federal constitutional requirements. Counsel have studied the way that these systems function in multiple courts to investigate the wide array of options in practice.
271. As a result, counsel has devoted enormous time and resources to becoming intimately familiar with the Defendants’ scheme and with all of the relevant state and federal laws and procedures that can and should govern it.
272. Among other matters, counsel for the Plaintiff has also been lead counsel in several similar class action constitutional challenges to unlawful debt-collection regimes in Tennessee, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Providence Comm. Corrections, Inc., 154 F. Supp. 3d 758 (M.D. Tenn. 2015) (class action settlement against a private for-profit probation company and Rutherford County, Tennessee obtaining classwide preliminary injunctive relief for a class of tens of thousands of probationers and debtors and resulting in a $14.3 million settlement); see also, e.g., Jenkins v. City of Jennings, 15-cv-252-CEJ (E.D. Mo. 2015) (settled with classwide injunction and $4.75 million in damages for nearly 2,000 court debtors who were illegally jailed); Mitchell v. City of Montgomery, 14-cv-186 (M.D. Ala. 2014) (landmark litigation and consent decree to end widespread injustices involving the use of private for-profit probation and the jailing of impoverished debtors by the City of Montgomery); Bell v. City of Jackson, 3:15-cv-732 TSL-RHW (S.D. Miss. 2015) (settled with consent decree ending jailing of court debtors in Jackson, Mississippi). Counsel is also lead attorney in pending lawsuits challenging the treatment of indigent court debtors in Ferguson, Missouri, and New Orleans, Louisiana. Fant v. City of Ferguson, 15-cv-253-AGF (E.D. Mo. 2015) (pending); Cain v. City of
79

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 80 of 102
New Orleans, Case No. 15-4479, 2:15-cv-04479-SSV-JCW (E.D. La. 2015) (pending).42 273. The interests of the members of the Class will be fairly and adequately protected
by counsel. CAUSES OF ACTION
Count One: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (c) and (d)
(Against Aberdeen, Inc., Jim Shofner, Robert Shofner, the Sheriffs’ Association, and the 54 Sheriff Defendants in their Individual Capacities)
274. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-257. 275. Plaintiffs David Smith, Christopher Choate, Linda Meachum, and Melanie Holmes bring this claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968 (“RICO”), on behalf of themselves and members of the putative damages class, against Aberdeen, Inc., Jim Shofner, Rob Shofner, the Sheriffs’ Association, and the 54 Sheriff Defendants (the “RICO Defendants”). 276. The Plaintiffs are “persons” with standing to sue within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1964(c). 277. The RICO Defendants are “RICO persons” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3) because they are individuals and/or entities capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property. I. The RICO Enterprise 278. The RICO Defendants and other named and unnamed conspirators constitute an association-in-fact and therefore an enterprise within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). This
42 Counsel from Civil Rights Corps has also been appointed class counsel in recent cases certifying classes of indigent arrestees challenging their detention due solely to their inability to pay money bail. See, e.g., ODonnell v. Harris County, No. 16-CV-1414, 2017 WL 1542457 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2017); Caliste v. Cantrell, No. 17-CV-6197, 2018 WL 1365809 (E.D. La. Mar. 16, 2018); Walker v. City of Calhoun, No. 15-CV-170, 2016 WL 361580, at *10 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 28, 2016).
80

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 81 of 102
RICO Enterprise is an ongoing business relationship with the common purpose of maximizing the collection of court debts by Aberdeen, Inc. without consideration of ability to pay or other required legal process.
279. The RICO Enterprise is engaged in interstate commerce because its activities and transactions relating to the collection of money, and the movement of the profit received by the Defendants through the enterprise, frequently require movement and communications across state lines. Aberdeen, Inc.’s case managers use electronic and telephone communications and United States mail to communicate with plaintiffs and members of the proposed class, including those who live outside of Oklahoma, including using those means to transmit threats of incarceration for nonpayment. Aberdeen, Inc. also collects payments from people who live outside of Oklahoma using interstate mail and/or wires. The RICO Enterprise has collected millions of dollars in payments from thousands of debtors who would have used some of that money to purchase goods in interstate commerce. Aberdeen, Inc.’s policies also direct employees to collect money from people who receive federal disability payments.
280. The members of the RICO Enterprise function as a continuing unit. 281. Aberdeen, Inc. threatens unlawful arrest and incarceration and refuses to request that arrest warrants be recalled for the purpose of extracting payment of court debts from plaintiffs and members of the proposed class without regard to their indigence or ability to pay. Aberdeen, Inc. adds additional fees to the court debts and determines how much payment it will require to request that an arrest warrant be lifted or defer seeking an arrest warrant (which it knows that the other Defendants will issue and execute pursuant to their common enterprise), demands such payment under threat of unlawful arrest, intentionally conceals alternative options that would avoid issuance of an arrest warrant, and seeks warrants for the arrest of persons who it
81

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 82 of 102
knows to be indigent without disclosing such information. Once a person is arrested on an arrest warrant for nonpayment, Aberdeen, Inc. calls family members and threatens prolonged incarceration of the indigent person if the family does not pay money to Aberdeen, Inc.
282. The Sheriffs’ Association has contracted with Aberdeen, Inc. to conduct the activities in the above paragraph, and knows that Aberdeen, Inc. is engaging in these activities. It receives and reviews regular reports regarding Aberdeen, Inc.’s collection activities, and administers the contract with Aberdeen, Inc. With knowledge of its unlawful activities, the Sheriffs’ Association has decided to renew the contract with Aberdeen, Inc. multiple times. The Sheriffs’ Association has allowed the contract to continue in full force even after having been served with this lawsuit and being notified of Aberdeen, Inc.’s unlawful activities. The Sheriffs’ Association provides assistance to Aberdeen, Inc. in its extortionate activities by enlisting government entities to procure debtor information and relay that information to Aberdeen, Inc. The Sheriffs’ Association benefits financially from Aberdeen, Inc.’s extortionate collection of money from indigent persons under threat of arrest.
283. The individual Defendant Sheriffs execute the arrest warrants threatened and obtained by Aberdeen, Inc., which they know were procured as a result of Aberdeen, Inc.’s policies and practices, in order to provide a credible threat of incarceration to maximize the coercive effect of the company’s threats. Defendant Sheriffs also are required by the contract to provide debtor information to Aberdeen, Inc., and are granted “sole discretion” along with court clerks to choose cases to transfer to Aberdeen, Inc. They have continued to transfer cases to Aberdeen, Inc. for collection in order to maximize debts collected for generating Aberdeen, Inc.’ profits, generating revenues locally, and to maximize revenues to the Sheriffs’ Association.
284. Defendant Sheriffs are constituent members of the Sheriff’s Association and
82

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 83 of 102
thereby benefit financially from the conduct of the RICO Enterprise. Defendant Sheriffs also benefit financially because, apart from the Sheriffs’ Association’s contract with Aberdeen, Inc., certain fees that Aberdeen, Inc. collects must (after being sent to the district court clerk) be remitted to the Defendant Sheriff of that county. Defendant Sheriffs execute the warrants issued upon Aberdeen, Inc.’s request and, except in those counties with Jail Trust Authorities responsible for the county jail, detain persons in jail pending payment to Aberdeen, Inc., including those who are unable to pay due to indigence.
285. The Shofners direct Aberdeen, Inc.’s collection activities. They set company policy as to collections; exercise direct supervision over Aberdeen, Inc. employees who are responsible for individual cases, including by listening in on their phone calls; and determine the collection practices Aberdeen, Inc. employs.
286. Through these actions, the RICO Defendants conduct and participate in a pattern of racketeering activity (through predicate acts of extortion and extortionate collection of extensions of credit), as well as conspiring with each other to do the same. Defendants continue to engage in these racketeering acts, and pose a continuous threat of engaging in these racketeering acts.
287. These practices are a regular way of conducting the ongoing business of each Defendant and of conducting or participating in the ongoing enterprise.
288. Defendants have violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) because they are part of an enterprise that is engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity.
289. Defendants have violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) because they have conspired with each other to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
290. Specifically, Defendants have conducted or participated in and conspired to
83

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 84 of 102
conduct the affairs of the RICO Enterprise by engaging in the following predicate acts of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1):
a. Extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951; b. Extortion in violation of the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952; c. Extortion in violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 21, §§ 1481 & 1482; and d. Extortionate collection of extension of credit in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 894. II. Predicate Acts 291. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the previously described allegations. 292. Defendants have, individually and in conspiracy with the other participants in the RICO Enterprise, obtained by threat and force payments associated with the various court debts related to criminal and traffic cases from Plaintiffs and members of the putative class, with intent to deprive indigent persons of this money. 293. Because of these unlawful threats, Plaintiffs paid the court debts demanded by Aberdeen, Inc. A. Extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 294. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the previously described allegations. 295. The RICO Defendants have, through the RICO Enterprise, individually and in conspiracy with the other participants, obtained payments from Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class with their consent, which was induced by threatening arrest in violation of constitutionally protected rights, arresting individuals, and detaining them pending payment of money to Aberdeen, Inc. These acts constitute the wrongful use of actual and threatened force and fear, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (the “Hobbs Act”). 296. The proceeds of RICO Defendants’ extortionate activities were used in interstate
84

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 85 of 102
commerce and prevented Plaintiffs from purchasing goods in interstate commerce, and therefore affected commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, as these terms are understood by 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a).
297. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional acts discussed above, Plaintiffs and proposed class members have suffered injuries to their property, including payment of unlawful debt to RICO Defendants.
B. Extortion in Violation of the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952 298. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the previously described allegations. 299. RICO Defendants have, through the RICO Enterprise, individually and in conspiracy with the other participants, obtained by threat payments associated with court debts from Plaintiffs and members of the putative class, with intent to deprive them of this money and the enjoyment of their state and federal rights, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (the “Travel Act”). 300. RICO Defendants have used the mail and facilities in interstate commerce to distribute the proceeds of the extortionate scheme and to communicate with each other and with their victims concerning the operation of the scheme in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(1). RICO Defendants have used the mail and facilities in interstate commerce to otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of an extortionate scheme, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3). 301. As a direct and proximate result of RICO Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional acts discussed in this claim, Plaintiffs and proposed class members have suffered injuries to their property and/or business, including being deprived of money unlawfully
85

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 86 of 102
obtained by Defendants through extortion. C. Extortion in Violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 21, §§ 1481 & 1482
302. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the previously described allegations.
303. The RICO Defendants have, through the RICO Enterprise, individually and in conspiracy with the other participants, obtained by threat payments associated with court debts from Plaintiffs and members of the putative class. The RICO Defendants obtained these payments by threats to (1) unlawfully injure Plaintiffs and members of the putative class, (2) accuse them of a crime, and (3) expose them to or impute to them disgrace in violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 21, §§ 1481 & 1482. These threats include, but are not limited to, threats to have Plaintiffs and the other class members unlawfully arrested if they do not make sufficient payments to Aberdeen, Inc. These unlawful threats are designed to coerce payment in ways that violate state and federal law and that deliberately prevent Plaintiffs from taking advantage of their legal rights.
304. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional acts discussed in this Complaint, Plaintiffs and proposed class members have suffered injuries to their property, including being deprived of money unlawfully obtained by Defendants through extortion.
D. Extortionate Collection of Extension of Credit, 18 U.S.C. § 894 305. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the previously described allegations. 306. The RICO Defendants have, through the RICO Enterprise, individually and in conspiracy with the other participants, extended credit to Plaintiffs and members of the putative
86

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 87 of 102
class by offering and entering into payment plans and other agreements to defer repayment of debt, as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 891(1).
307. The RICO Defendants have, through the RICO Enterprise, individually and in conspiracy with the other participants, used extortionate means to collect on the credit extensions, including actual and threatened wrongful arrest and detention.
308. As a direct and proximate result of the RICO Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional acts discussed in this claim, Plaintiffs and proposed class members have suffered injuries to their property, including being deprived of money unlawfully obtained by Defendants through extortion. III. Pattern of Racketeering Activity
309. RICO Defendants and the other participants in the RICO Enterprise have engaged in the racketeering activity described in this Complaint repeatedly since at least 2010 and continuing through the present with respect to thousands of indigent persons. These racketeering acts are part of the enterprise’s regular way of doing business.
310. The racketeering acts of RICO Defendants and the other participants in the RICO Enterprise have a similar purpose: to maximize the collection of court debts by Aberdeen, Inc. without consideration of the ability to pay and without informing debtors of their legal rights.
311. The racketeering acts of RICO Defendants and the other participants in the RICO Enterprise have yielded similar results and caused similar injuries to Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class: Plaintiffs have, inter alia, been subjected to hardship as a result of payments made to Aberdeen, Inc. as a result of its unlawful conduct. Additionally, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class have been subjected to threats of wrongful detention and actual wrongful detention in violation of their rights under federal and state constitutional and statutory law.
87

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 88 of 102
312. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, the racketeering acts have similar participants: Aberdeen, Inc., the Sheriffs’ Association, the Defendant Sheriffs, the Shofners, as well as other participants who are not named as RICO Defendants.
313. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, RICO Defendants and the other participants in the RICO Enterprise, through the RICO Enterprise, directed their racketeering activities at similar victims: named Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class.
314. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, the racketeering acts of Defendants and the other participants in the RICO Enterprise have similar methods of commission, namely, extorting payments associated with court debt from named Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class. IV. Injury
315. As a direct and proximate result of RICO Defendants’ and the other participants in the RICO Enterprise’s willful, knowing, and intentional acts discussed in this Complaint, Plaintiffs David Smith, Christopher Choate, Linda Meachum, Melanie Holmes, and members of the Damages Class have suffered injuries to their property. Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class have paid money to Aberdeen, Inc. and the Sheriffs’ Association, and they have been forced to continue paying under threat of jailing and other legal consequences even when they cannot afford to do so without sacrificing the basic necessities of life, resulting in economic harm to themselves and their families.
316. Plaintiff Choate has made payments to Aberdeen, Inc. with money from protected SSI and/or SSDI benefits. All plaintiffs made payments that they would have been entitled to keep had they been afforded the substantive and procedural rights that they are guaranteed under state and federal law.
88

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 89 of 102
317. The Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this action. Count Two: Seeking, Issuing, and Executing Debt-Collection Arrest Warrants Based Solely on Nonpayment, Without Inquiry into Ability, to Pay Violates Plaintiffs’ Rights Under the
Fourteenth Amendment (Against Tulsa County, Rogers County, the Tulsa County Judges, the Rogers County Judge, the Tulsa Clerk, the Tulsa Cost Administrator the Tulsa County Sheriff, the Rogers Clerk, and the Rogers County Sheriff, in their individual and official capacities; and against Aberdeen, Inc., Jim Shofner, Robert Shofner, and the Sheriffs’ Association)
318. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations above. 319. It is a bedrock principle of due process that, absent exigent circumstances, individuals are entitled to pre-deprivation notice and an opportunity to be heard before the government deprives them of a liberty or property interest, particularly the fundamental interest in bodily liberty. 320. Moreover, it has long been established that due process and equal protection principles converge to guarantee that no person be imprisoned solely for nonpayment of money assessed by a court, unless the nonpayment was willful. 321. Defendants, as a matter of policy and practice, seek, issue, and execute debtcollection arrest warrants solely for nonpayment. 322. Specifically, the Tulsa Clerk, the Tulsa Cost Administrator, the Rogers Clerk, Aberdeen, Inc., Jim Shofner, and Rob Shofner seek warrants for nonpayment of court debt without inquiry into ability to pay and even where they know or should know that the debtor is indigent. As a matter of policy and practice, they omit material evidence from warrant applications, including evidence of indigence and offers by debtors to pay amounts less than they required in their discretion. These warrant applications are made without any pre-deprivation process. When
89

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 90 of 102
Aberdeen, Inc. and the Shofners seek such arrest warrants, the Tulsa Clerk, Tulsa Cost Administrator, and Rogers Clerk assist in having the requests signed by a judge.
323. At the request of the Defendants who seek warrants, the Tulsa County Judges and Rogers County Judge issue arrest warrants for nonpayment without any pre-deprivation process, including without any inquiry into ability to pay or consideration of alternatives prior to incarceration for nonpayment.
324. The Tulsa County and Rogers County Sheriffs execute these warrants with knowledge that they were issued without any pre-deprivation process, and detain persons in jail pending payment.
325. The Sheriffs’ Association contracts with Aberdeen, Inc., and has periodically renewed the contract, with knowledge of its unlawful policies and practices.
326. As a result of these Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed classes are arrested and imprisoned for nonpayment, even though nonpayment was not willful, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
327. Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiffs’ liberty interest causes additional injuries beyond physical restraint. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ denial of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process Clause, Plaintiffs’ court debt has increased, including, but not limited to, the addition of $80 in warrant fees, a 30-percent penalty surcharge resulting from the transfer of Plaintiffs’ cases to Aberdeen, Inc., and fees for each day spent in jail.
328. Plaintiffs Frazier, Graff, and Holmes bring this claim for damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs Choate, Smith, Meachum and Wilkins bring this claim for injunctive relief only.
Count Three: Seeking, Issuing, and Executing Debt-Collection Arrest Warrants Based Solely on Unsworn Allegations of Nonpayment Containing Material Omissions Violates
Plaintiffs’ Rights Under the Fourth Amendment
90

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 91 of 102
(Against Tulsa County, Rogers County, the Tulsa County Judges, the Rogers County Judge, the Tulsa Clerk, the Tulsa Cost Administrator the Tulsa County Sheriff, the Rogers
Clerk, and the Rogers County Sheriff, in their individual and official capacities; and against Aberdeen, Inc., Jim Shofner, Robert Shofner, and the Sheriffs’ Association)
329. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations above. 330. The Fourth Amendment (applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment) prohibits government agents from seeking a warrant on the basis of a knowingly false or misleading affidavit. Notwithstanding this prohibition, Defendants routinely seek, issue, and execute warrants for nonpayment that do not include material information regarding a debtor’s inability to pay that Defendants either know, or should know but for their reckless disregard for the indigent debtor’s rights. 331. The Fourth Amendment also prohibits the issuance of arrest warrants unless there is probable cause that an offense has been committed, and the probable cause is supported by oath or affirmation. Notwithstanding this prohibition, Defendants routinely seek, issue, and execute warrants that are based on unsworn allegations of nonpayment containing no information supported by oath or affirmation, and containing no information regarding an essential element of the alleged offense—willful refusal to pay—necessary to establish probable cause. 332. Specifically, the Tulsa Clerk, the Tulsa Cost Administrator, the Rogers Clerk, Aberdeen, Inc., Jim Shofner, and Rob Shofner seek arrest warrants for nonpayment of court debt without sworn statements supporting any of the factual basis for the warrant application, lacking in probable cause, and omitting relevant information within their knowledge about debtors’ inability to pay. When Aberdeen, Inc. and the Shofners seek these warrants, the Tulsa Clerk, Tulsa Cost Administrator, and Rogers Clerk assist in having the requests signed by a judge. 333. At the request of the Defendants who seek warrants, the Tulsa County Judges and Rogers County Judge issue these warrants.
91

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 92 of 102
334. The Tulsa County and Rogers County Sheriffs execute these warrants and detain persons in jail with knowledge that the warrants lacked sworn statements supporting the factual basis, lacked probable cause, and omitted relevant information as a matter of policy and practice, or with reckless disregard for the same.
335. The Sheriffs’ Association contracts with Aberdeen, Inc., and has periodically renewed the contract, with knowledge of its unlawful policies and practices.
336. By seeking, issuing, and executing warrants that are unlawful because they omit material information pertaining to ability to pay, are based on allegations of nonpayment not supported by oath or affirmation, and do not establish probable cause for arrest, Defendants violate Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights.
337. Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiffs’ liberty interest causes additional injuries beyond physical restraint. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ denial of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process Clause, Plaintiffs’ court debt has increased, including, but not limited to, the addition of $80 in warrant fees, a 30% penalty resulting from the transfer of Plaintiffs' cases to Aberdeen, Inc., and fees for each day spent in jail.
338. Plaintiffs Frazier, Graff, and Holmes bring this claim for damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs Choate, Smith, Meachum and Wilkins bring this claim for injunctive relief only.
Count Four: Detaining Persons Arrested on Debt-Collection Arrest Warrants Because of an Inability to Pay Violates Plaintiffs’ Rights Under the Fourteenth Amendment
(Against Tulsa County, Rogers County, the Tulsa County Judges, the Rogers County Judge, the Tulsa Clerk, the Tulsa County Sheriff, the Rogers Clerk, and the and the Rogers County Sheriff in their official capacities; and the Tulsa County Sheriff in his
official and individual capacities) 339. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations above. 340. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses prohibit jailing a person solely because of her inability to afford a monetary payment.
92

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 93 of 102
341. The Fourteenth Amendment additionally prohibits jailing a person without a hearing, held by a neutral decisionmaker, that addresses whether detention is necessary because the person is a flight risk or danger to the community.
342. The Tulsa County Judges set the amount required for those who have been arrested on debt-collection arrest warrants to be released at $250. The Rogers County Judge sets the amount at the total amount owed for those who have been arrested on debt-collection arrest warrants. These payments are pre-set without inquiry into ability to pay. The Rogers and Tulsa Clerks assist in setting and implementing these required fix-sum payments.
343. Based on the amounts pre-set by the judges, the Tulsa County and Rogers County Sheriffs detain indigent persons on these debt-collection arrest warrants, while allowing those who can make the payment to go free. These practices violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
344. Plaintiff Melanie Holmes brings this claim for damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs Frazier, Graff, Choate, Smith, Meachum, and Wilkins bring this claim for injunctive relief only.
Count Five: Jailing Debtors Without Proof of Willfulness Without Notice and a Hearing Violates Their State-Created Liberty Interests
(Against Tulsa County, Rogers County, the Tulsa County Judges, the Rogers County Judge, the Tulsa Clerk, the Tulsa Cost Administrator the Tulsa County Sheriff, the Rogers Clerk, and the Rogers County Sheriff, in their individual and official capacities; and against Aberdeen, Inc., Jim Shofner, Robert Shofner, and the
Sheriffs’ Association) 345. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations above. 346. Oklahoma law provides every person owing court debt with an affirmative right to be free from jailing in the absence of proof that the person has willfully refused to pay her court debt. See Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 983(A); see also Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 8.4. This right is mandatory and non-discretionary, and it creates a substantive liberty interest that
93

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 94 of 102
the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects. A person cannot be deprived of such a liberty interest without adequate process, including notice and a hearing.
347. Specifically, the Tulsa Clerk, the Tulsa Cost Administrator, the Rogers Clerk, Aberdeen, Inc., Jim Shofner, and Rob Shofner seek arrest warrants for nonpayment of court debts without inquiry into ability to pay and even where they know or should know that the debtor is indigent. When Aberdeen, Inc. and the Shofners seek warrants, the Tulsa Clerk, Tulsa Cost Administrator, and Rogers Clerk assist in seeking the issuance of these warrants from a judge.
348. At the request of the Defendants who seek warrants, the Tulsa County Judges and Rogers County Judge issue arrest warrants for nonpayment without any pre-deprivation process, including without any inquiry into ability to pay or consideration of alternatives prior to incarceration for nonpayment.
349. The Tulsa County and Rogers County Sheriffs execute these warrants with knowledge that they were issued without any pre-deprivation process, and detain persons in jail pending payment.
350. The Sheriffs’ Association contracts with Aberdeen, Inc., and has periodically renewed the contract, with knowledge of its unlawful activities.
351. As a result of these practices, Plaintiffs, who all owe court debt, as well as members of the putative class, have been deprived, or are imminently at risk of being deprived, of their liberty right to be free from physical restraint and jailing without the process that the Fourteenth Amendment requires.
352. Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiffs’ liberty interest causes additional injuries beyond physical restraint. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ denial of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process Clause, Plaintiffs’ court debt has increased, including, but not limited
94

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 95 of 102
to, the addition of $80 in warrant fees, a 30-percent penalty resulting from the transfer of Plaintiffs' cases to Aberdeen, Inc., and fees for each day spent in jail.
353. Plaintiff Melanie Holmes brings this claim for damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs Frazier, Graff, Choate, Smith, Meachum, and Wilkins bring this claim for injunctive relief only.
Count Six: Aberdeen, Inc.’s Role in Collecting Court Debts and Requesting and Recalling Arrest Warrants Violates the Due Process Clause
(Against Aberdeen, Inc., Jim Shofner, Robert Shofner, the Sheriffs’ Association, and the 54 Sheriff Defendants in their official capacities)
354. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-316 above. 355. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits government law enforcement actors from having a direct and personal financial stake in the cases under their authority. This principle extends to those charged with administering the government’s collection of court debt and who thus wield power over who is arrested and how long they remain confined. 356. In signing the Agreement, the Sheriffs’ Association, acting on behalf of the Sheriff Defendants, delegated collection of court debts to Aberdeen, Inc. 357. The terms of the Agreement, in turn, leave Aberdeen, Inc. with an impermissible and unconstitutional financial bias by making Aberdeen, Inc.’s revenue depend entirely on the gross amount that it collects. In so doing, the Agreement vests Aberdeen, Inc. with an incentive to use the tools at its disposal—access to and authority to edit government files, authority to seek an arrest warrant, authority to request recall of a warrant, authority to set ransom amounts arrestees must pay to get out of jail, and authority to set payment plans and due dates—to maximize its own revenue rather than to further the ends of justice or to comply with basic legal rights. And, apart from the Agreement, Defendants’ scheme in practice vests Aberdeen, Inc. with nearly unfettered authority in these realms because the other Defendants issue and execute the arrest warrants that
95

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 96 of 102
Aberdeen, Inc. seeks with their shared common purpose of creating in debtors the credible fear that Aberdeen, Inc. can make good on its threats if sufficient payments are not made. This financial incentive is particularly potent because Aberdeen, Inc. has no other business outside of its work collecting fines and fees.
358. Consistent with its financial incentive, Aberdeen, Inc. exploits its authority over Plaintiffs and the proposed class in a manner aimed solely at extracting as much money as possible without regard to their ability to pay or to obtain basic living necessities thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs.
359. This claim is brought by all Plaintiffs, who seek damages and injunctive relief. Count Seven: Defendants’ Policy and Practice of Subjecting Individuals Who Owe Court Debt to Onerous Collection Enforcement Methods Violates the Fourteenth
Amendment (Against All Defendants in all capacities) 360. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-321 above. 361. Individuals who are wealthy enough to pay the full amount of their fines and fees may do so without any continued contact with any governmental official or private contractor. By contrast, for individuals too poor to pay their court debt, including Plaintiffs, Defendant Judges issue arrest warrants, and Defendant Clerks and the Tulsa Cost Administrator and the Sheriff Defendants, pursuant to the Agreement, transfer Plaintiffs’ cases to Aberdeen, Inc. Defendant Clerks and the Tulsa Cost Administrator then assess an additional 30-percent penalty surcharge to be added to the amount of court debt owed and, depending on the nature of the underlying offense, suspension of a driver’s license. Aberdeen, Inc. then subjects those too poor to pay, including Plaintiffs, to repeated threats of arrests, forces them to pay arbitrary and unachievable amounts to have a warrant recalled, and harasses family members whose contact information they possess. The Sheriff Defendants arrest persons in connection with these onerous collection enforcement
96

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 97 of 102
activities. This policy and practice of subjecting individuals, including Plaintiffs, to more extreme penalties and threats, while allowing those who can afford to pay to be left alone, violates the Equal Protection Clause.
362. This claim is brought by all Plaintiffs, who seek damages and injunctive relief. Count Eight: The Practice of Using Arrest Warrants to Coerce Plaintiffs into
Making Monetary Payments They Cannot Afford Constitutes Abuse of Process (Against Aberdeen, Inc., the Sheriffs’ Association, Robert Shofner, and Jim Shofner)
363. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations above. 364. Aberdeen, Inc. misuses arrest warrants to further its unlawful scheme and for the improper purpose of extracting revenue from the impoverished plaintiffs. 365. When a case is transferred to Aberdeen, Inc. for collections, Aberdeen, Inc. exploits the threat that a warrant poses and prolongs the amount of time a warrant remains active with the improper purpose of extracting as much money as possible from debtors. 366. The Sheriffs’ Association by renewing the contract (and continuing to refuse to revoke it) with knowledge of Aberdeen’s policies and practices, has authorized Aberdeen, Inc. to engage in the abuse of process. 367. All Plaintiffs have been injured by Aberdeen, Inc.’s abuse of process and seek damages and injunctive relief.
Count Nine: Duress (Against Aberdeen, Inc., the Sheriffs’ Association, Robert Shofner, and Jim Shofner)
368. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations above. 369. When an individual cannot pay court debt, Aberdeen, Inc. threatens to obtain, or threatens not to recall, a debt-collection arrest warrant even when it knows that the individual is indigent, that the individual cannot afford to pay, and thus that there are no lawful grounds for an
97

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 98 of 102
arrest warrant. Plaintiffs have paid Aberdeen, Inc. because of these threats, and in return, Aberdeen, Inc. has recalled warrants and/or not sought new warrants. Aberdeen, Inc. engages in this practice with full knowledge of debtors’ lack of sophistication and vulnerability to these threats.
370. Plaintiffs Smith, Choate, Meachum, and Holmes have been injured as a result of agreements formed under duress from Aberdeen, Inc., and seek damages.
Count Ten: Unjust Enrichment (Against Aberdeen, Inc., the Sheriffs’ Association, Robert Shofner, and Jim
Shofner) 371. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations above. 372. Plaintiffs David Smith, Christopher Choate, Ira Lee Wilkins, and Linda Meachum have paid money that has enriched Aberdeen, Inc. and the Sheriffs’ Association. Aberdeen, Inc. obtained these payments through unjust methods, including threatening arrest and concealing Plaintiffs’ legal rights. The transfer of money from Plaintiffs to Aberdeen, Inc. has resulted in the injustice of Plaintiffs struggling to obtain the basic necessities of life and the perpetuation of an extortionate scheme. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court provide the following relief: a. Certification of the classes, represented by the named Plaintiffs, described in paragraphs 214-273. b. An award of treble damages as authorized by RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c); c. An order declaring it unlawful for Defendants to seek, issue, and execute debtcollection arrest warrants based solely on alleged nonpayment, and similarly that it is unlawful to
98

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 99 of 102
seek, issue, and execute such warrants without inquiry into ability to pay, consideration of alternatives, pre-deprivation process, and factual allegations based on oath or affirmation;
d. An order prohibiting Aberdeen, Inc., Jim Shofner, Rob Shofner, the Tulsa Cost Administrator, the Tulsa and Rogers County Court Clerks, Tulsa County, Rogers County, the Sheriffs’ Association, and the 54 Sheriff Defendants from seeking or enforcing debt-collection arrest warrants based on nonpayment without making inquiry into the warrant subject’s ability to pay and consideration of alternatives;
e. An order declaring it unlawful for the Tulsa County Judges and Rogers County Judge to issue debt-collection arrest warrants on the basis of unsworn statements, and declaring the same unconstitutional;
f. An order prohibiting the Tulsa County and Rogers County Sheriffs from holding individuals arrested on debt-collection arrest warrants in jail unless they pay a pre-set sum, without any inquiry into ability to pay and without advancing a compelling government interest, and declaring the same unconstitutional;
g. An order enjoining Defendants from using a debt collection company that exercises control over debtors’ liberty and also has a direct financial interest to infringe on that liberty, and declaring the same unconstitutional;
h. An order enjoining the practice of subjecting individuals too poor to pay their court debts to more onerous collection methods, including, but not limited to, imposing additional financial penalties, threats of arrest, arrest and detention, and declaring the same unconstitutional;
99

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 100 of 102
i. An order enjoining the collection of a 30-percent penalty surcharge from
individuals too poor to pay their court debt, and declaring the assessment of that penalty, without
any inquiry into an individual’s ability to pay, unconstitutional;43
j. An award of compensatory and punitive damages;
k. An award of declaratory and injunctive relief;
l. An award of Plaintiffs’ costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
m. An order of such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Jill E. Webb Jill Webb, OBA #21402 J Webb Law Firm PLLC P.O. Box 1234 Tulsa, OK 74101 Tel: 918-346-5664 jill.webb@gmail.com
/s/ Daniel E. Smolen Daniel Smolen, OBA #19943 Donald E. Smolen, II, OBA #19944 Robert M. Blakemore, OBA #18656 Smolen, Smolen & Roytman 701 South Cincinnati Avenue Tulsa, OK 74119 Tel: 918-585-2667 Fax: 918-585-2669
/s/ Katherine Hubbard Katherine Hubbard (admitted Pro Hac Vice) California Bar No. 302729 Alec Karakatsanis (admitted Pro Hac Vice) D.C. Bar No. 999294 Marco Lopez* (motion to appear Pro Hac Vice forthcoming) California Bar No. 316245 Tara Mikkilineni (motion to appear Pro Hac Vice forthcoming) D.C. Bar No. 997284
43 Claims for injunctive relief are not brought against the Tulsa County Judges or Rogers County Judge, against whom only declaratory relief is sought.
100

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 101 of 102
Civil Rights Corps 910 17th Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006 Tel: 202-599-0953 Fax: 202-609-8030 katherine@civilrightscorps.org alec@civilrightscorps.org marco@civilrightscorps.org tara@civilrightscorps.org
*Admitted solely to practice law in California; not admitted in the District of Columbia. Practice is limited pursuant to D.C. App. R. 49(c)(3).
/s/ Seth Wayne Mary B. McCord (admitted Pro Hac Vice) D.C. Bar No. 427563 Douglas N. Letter D.C. Bar No. 253492 (motion to appear Pro Hac Vice forthcoming) Robert D. Friedman (admitted Pro Hac Vice) D.C. Bar No. 1046738 Seth Wayne (admitted Pro Hac Vice) D.C. Bar No. pending Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection Georgetown University Law Center 600 New Jersey Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20001 Tel: 202-662-9042 Fax: 202-662-9248 mbm7@georgetown.edu dl1016@georgetown.edu rdf34@georgetown.edu sw1098@georgetown.edu
101

Case 4:17-cv-00606-TCK-JFJ Document 212 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/21/18 Page 102 of 102
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 21st day of September, 2018, I electronically transmitted the foregoing document to the Clerk of Court using the ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to all ECF registrants who have appeared in this case. /s/ Seth Wayne
102