Case 1:15-cv-00182-LG-RHW Document 1 Filed 06/12/15 Page 1 of 11

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

)

CHEVON ELIZABETH T HOM PSON, et al.)

)

Pl a intiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MOSS POINT, MISSISSIPPI,

)

)

D e fend ant.

)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
FILE 0

JUN 12 2015

ARTHUR JOHNSTON

BY

DEPUTY

vl0l 5( Case No.
(Class Action) 1'. \

LG--fftvV

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Introduction

This case is about the City of Moss Point jailing some of its poorest peop le because they

cannot pay a small amount of money. Chevon Elizabeth Thompson was arrested with in the past

24 hours and is currently detained by the City because she cannot afford to pay the amount of

money generically set by the secured "bail schedule" used by Moss Point.

In Moss Point, most people arrested for traffic or misdemeanor offe nses are released

immediately upon paymen t of a small amount of money. The amount of the bond ranges from

several hundred dollars to several thousand doll ars. If a person is charged with multi ple

offenses, the fi xed amount for each offense is added together to determine the total amount of

cash required for release. Those arrestees who are too poor to afford to pay remain in jail

because of their poverty for up to a week without seeing a judicial offi cer.

On behalf of the many other arrestees subjected to the City's un lawfu l and ongoing post-

arrest money-based detention sc heme, the named Plaintiff challenges in this action the use of an

unlawful generi c offense-based " bail schedul e" that operates to detain only the most

im poverished misdemeanor arrestees. The City' s policy has no place in modern American law.

Case 1:15-cv-00182-LG-RHW Document 1 Filed 06/12/15 Page 2 of 11

By and through her attorneys and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the

named Plaintiff seeks in this civil action the vindication of her fundamental rights, injunctive

relief assuring that her rights and the rights of the other Class members will not continue to be

violated, and a declaration that the City's conduct is unlawful.

Nature of the Action1

1. It is the policy and practice of Moss Point to refuse to release traffic and

misdemeanor arrestees from jail unless they pay a generically set amount of money. That

amount is between $300 and $2,250 for most violations. Because this sum is set generically by

reference to the aiJeged offense of arrest, no individualized factors are considered, and anyone

who cannot afford to pay is held in jail for up to a week before any judicial hearing. Plaintiff

seeks declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief.

Jurisdiction and Venue

2.

This is a civil rights action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201,

et seq., and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This Court has

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

3.

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

Parties

4.

Named Plaintiff Chevon Thompson is a 33-year-old woman living in the City of

Moss Point, Mississippi. She is the mother of three children. She represents herself as an

individual and a Class of similarly situated people all subject to the City's post-arrest money-

based detention scheme.

1 Plaintiff makes the allegations in this Complaint based on personal knowledge as to matters in which she has had personal involvement and on information and belief as to all other matters.
2

Case 1:15-cv-00182-LG-RHW Document 1 Filed 06/12/15 Page 3 of 11
5. Defendant Moss Point is a local government entity organized under the laws of the State of Mississippi. The City contracts with a jail operated by Jackson County to detain its arrestees, the plaintiff Class members, who are subject to the City's post-arrest detention policies.
Factual Background A. The Named Plaintiff's Arrest 6. Chevon Thompson is a 33-year-old mother of three children. See Exhibit 1, Declaration of Chevon Elizabeth Thompson. 7. Ms. Thompson was arrested by Moss Point police on June 11, 2015. She was charged with misdemeanor offenses, including shoplifting, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest. 8. Pursuant to Moss Point police department policy, Ms. Thompson was taken to jail and told that she would be released if she paid Moss Point $3,200. She was told that she would be kept in jail unless she paid $800 as bond for her disorderly conduct charge and $1 ,200 for each of her other two charges. 9. Ms. Thompson is indigent. She has no significant assets or regular income. She has no bank account and owns no real property. She lives with her elderly mother. Her only source of recent income has been occasional low-paying odd jobs that she performed around the neighborhood. 10. Ms. Thompson has not seen a judicial officer since her arrest and was told by Moss Point officials and agents that she might be brought to court on Tuesday, June 16, 2015, five days after her arrest. However, because Moss Point court sessions are occasionally
3

Case 1:15-cv-00182-LG-RHW Document 1 Filed 06/12/15 Page 4 of 11
cancelled, it is not clear that she will be brought to court at that time. Pursuant to City policy, however, the earliest that she could be brought to court for a first appearance is June 16, 2015.
B. The City's Policies and Practices 11. The named Plaintiff would be released immediately by Moss Point if she or someone acting on her behalf paid the amount of cash set by Moss Point. 12. The treatment of the named Plaintiff and other Class members is caused by and is representative of the City's post-arrest detention policies and practices. 13. As a matter of policy and practice, when officers in Moss Point make an arrest for a traffic or misdemeanor violation, officers inform the arrestee at booking that the person will be released immediately if the person pays money set by a fixed schedule.2 The arrestee is told that the arrestee will remain in jail if the arrestee is not able to make that payment. Moss Point contracts with Jackson County to hold Moss Point arrestees at the Jackson County jail unless or until they pay their money bond to the City. 14. Because court is held only once per week by Moss Point, an arrestee too poor to buy her way out ofjail could wait up to a week before any judicial proceedings. Because even those hearings are occasionally cancelled, an impoverished arrestee might spend even longer in jail before a first court appearance. 15. After an arrest, it is the policy of Moss Point officials to apply the secured "bail schedule," see Exhibit 2, which generally sets payment amounts between $300 and $2,250 depending on the offense of arrest. City officials do not deviate from that schedule. 16. Unlike many other cities and counties, Moss Point does not allow post-arrest release on recognizance or with an unsecured bond (in which a person would be released by
2 Arrestees are also told that they can contract with a private bonding company by paying what usually amounts to 10% of the scheduled amount, but many impoverished arrestees cannot afford even that amount. Moreover, private bonding companies are under no obligation to provide a bond and can refuse to pay any bond in their discretion.
4

Case 1:15-cv-00182-LG-RHW Document 1 Filed 06/12/15 Page 5 of 11
promising to pay the scheduled amount if the person later does not appear). Instead, City officials require that the money payment amount be secured (i.e. paid up front before release).
17. Many of Moss Point's arrestees are released soon after arrest upon payment of the scheduled amount of money. Others remain detained for varying lengths of time until they or their families are able to borrow sufficient amounts of money or arrange for third-party payment. Many others, like the named Plaintiff, who are too poor even to find anyone to pay the money bond for them, are kept in jail at least until they are brought to court up to a week later.3
Class Action Allegations 18. The named Plaintiff brings this action, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, for the purpose of asserting the claims alleged in this Complaint on a common basis. 19. A class action is a superior means, and the only practicable means, by which the named Plaintiff and unknown Class members can challenge the City's unlawful poverty-based post-arrest detention scheme. 20. This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a)(l)-(4) and Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 21. This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of those provisions. 22. The Plaintiff proposes one Class seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Declaratory and Injunctive Class is defined as: all arrestees unable to pay for their release pursuant to Moss Point's secured bail schedule who are or who will be in the custody of Moss Point. A. Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(l)
3 As a matter of policy, pattern, and practice, even after they are brought to court, arrestees are not given indigency hearings and no attempt is made by City prosecutors, City contract defense attorneys, or City judges to evaluate alternatives to money-based detention.
5

Case 1:15-cv-00182-LG-RHW Document 1 Filed 06/12/15 Page 6 of 11
23. Each arrestee is presented with the City's standard money bond choice of pay or jail. Arrestees are held in jail for varying lengths of time depending on how long it takes them to make the payment that the City requires for their release.
24. Some arrestees are able to pay for release immediately. Others are forced to wait a day or more until they or family members can make the payment. Others are not able to pay or to find someone else to pay for them even after several days of detention.
25. The number of current and future arrestees subjected to this policy if it is not enjoined is well over one hundred. City jail records show that there are often several Moss Point arrestees every day who have not been able to pay for their release.
B. Commonality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). 26. The relief sought is common to all members of the Class, and common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class. The named Plaintiff seeks relief concerning whether the City's policies, practices, and procedures violate the rights of the Class members and relief mandating the City to change its policies, practices, and procedures so that the constitutional rights of the Class members will be protected in the future. 27. These common legal and factual questions arise from one central scheme and set of policies and practices: the City's post-arrest detention schedule. The City operates this scheme openly and in materially the same manner every day. The material components of the scheme do not vary from Class member to Class member, and the resolution of these legal and factual issues will determine whether all of the members of the class are entitled to the constitutional relief that they seek. Among the most important, but not the only, common questions of fact are:
• Whether Moss Point has a policy and practice of using a ''bail schedule" to determine the amount of money necessary to secure post-arrest release;
6

Case 1:15-cv-00182-LG-RHW Document 1 Filed 06/12/15 Page 7 of 11
• Whether Moss Point requires that scheduled amount of money to be paid up front before it will release a person from jail;
• What standard post-arrest procedures Moss Point performs on misdemeanor arrestees; for example, whether Moss Point has any other alternate procedures for promptly releasing indigent people unable to afford a monetary payment.
28. Among the most important common question of law are: • Whether a secured "bail schedule" setting standard amounts of money required up front to avoid post-arrest detention violates the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses.
C. Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). 29. The named Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the Class, and she has the same interests in this case as all other members of the Class that she represents. Each of them suffers injuries from the failure of the City to comply with the basic constitutional provisions: they are each confined in jail because they could not afford to pay the City's standardized cash bond amount. The answer to whether the City's scheme of policies and practices is unconstitutional will determine the claims of the named Plaintiff and every other Class member. 30. If the named Plaintiff succeeds in the claim that the City's policies and practices concerning post-arrest detention violate her constitutional rights, that ruling will likewise benefit every other member of the Class. D. Adequacy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). 31. The named Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because her interests in the vindication of the legal claims that she raises are entirely aligned with the interests of the other Class members, who each have the same basic constitutional claims. She is a member of the Class, and her interests coincide with, and are not antagonistic to, those of the other Class members.
7

Case 1:15-cv-00182-LG-RHW Document 1 Filed 06/12/15 Page 8 of 11
32. The1·e are no known conflicts of interest among members of the proposed Class,
all of whom have a similar interest in vindicating their constitutional rights in the face of their
unlawful treatment by their local government.
33. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Equal Justice Under Law4 and the
Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center at the University of Mississippi School of Law
("MacArthur Justice Center"),5 who have experience in litigating complex civil rights matters in
federal court and knowledge of both the details of the City's scheme and the relevant
constitutional and statutory law.
34. The efforts of Class counsel have so far included investigation of Moss Point's
money~based pretrial detention system, interviews ofjail inmates and attorneys practicing in the
area, consultation with local and national experts, and research regarding the legality of Moss
Point's secured money bail regime.
35. Class counsel have studied the way that post~arrest detention systems function in
other cities and counties in order to investigate the wide array of lawful options in practice for
municipal entities.
4 Equal Justice Under Law is a non-profit civil rights organization based in Washington, D.C. The organization is funded in part by the Harvard Law School Public Service Venture Fund.
Counsel from Equal Justice Under Law was recently lead counsel in a landmark federal civil rights class action lawsuit against the City of Montgomery for engaging in similar practices. In that case, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama issued a preliminary injunction condemning and forbidding the City's similar jailing of impoverished people with unpaid debts, and the case was successfully settled after the City agreed to compensate the Plaintiffs and to the entry of an injunction reforming its entire municipal debt-collection regime. See Mitchell eta/. v. City ofMontgomery, 14-cv-186 (M.D. Ala. 2014).
Counsel is also lead counsel in recent similar challenges to the fixed "bail schedule" schemes employed by the City of Clanton, Alabama, and the City ofVelda City, Missouri. See Varden eta/. v. City ofClanton, 15-cv-34 (M.D. Ala 2015); Pierce et. a/. v. City of Velda City, 15-cv-570 (E.D. Mo. 2015). In each case, the City of Clanton and the City ofVelda City agreed to end their use of a fixed cash bail system for new arrestees. 5 The MacArthur Justice Center is a non-profit public interest law firm housed at the University of Mississippi. Undersigned counsel J. Cliff Johnson, the Director of the MacArthur Justice Center, has practiced law in Mississippi for more than 20 years and has litigated a wide variety of complex civil and criminal matters in state and federal comt. Undersigned counsel Jacob W. Howard, Of Counsel to the MacArthur Justice Center, has practiced law in Mississippi since 2012 and has litigated civil rights and criminal cases at the trial, appellate, and post-conviction stages in state and federal court.
8

Case 1:15-cv-00182-LG-RHW Document 1 Filed 06/12/15 Page 9 of 11
36. Class counsel also have experience litigating similar challenges in other jurisdictions and years of experience litigating complex and important cases in Mississippi federal courts.
37. As a result, counsel have undertaken significant efforts toward becoming intimately familiar with the City's scheme and with all of the relevant state and federal laws and procedures than can and should govern it. The interests of the members of the Class will be fairly and adequately protected by the named Plaintiff and her attorneys.
E. Rule 23(b)(2) 38. Class action status is appropriate because the City, through the policies, practices, and procedures that make up its post-arrest detention scheme, has acted in the same unconstitutional manner with respect to all class members. Moss Point has created and applied a simple scheme of post-arrest detention and release: it charges monetary sums typically ranging between $300 and $2,250 for every arrest. The City releases those who can pay and detains those who cannot. Impoverished arrestees who remain detained are eventually taken to court on the one day per week that the City holds court proceedings, which is usually Tuesday. 39. The Class therefore seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin the City from continuing in the future to detain impoverished arrestees who cannot afford money payments. Because the putative Class challenges the City's scheme as unconstitutional through declaratory and injunctive relief that would apply the same relief to every member of the Class, Rule 23(b)(2) certification is appropriate and necessary. 40. Injunctive relief compelling the City to comply with these constitutional rights will similarly protect each member of the Class from being subjected to the City's unlawful policies and practices. A declaration and injunction stating that the City cannot use a secured
9

Case 1:15-cv-00182-LG-RHW Document 1 Filed 06/12/15 Page 10 of 11
money "bail schedule" that jails indigent arrestees but frees arrestees with financial means would provide relief to every member of the Class. Therefore, declaratory and injunctive relief with
respect to the Class as a whole is appropriate. 41. Plaintiff seeks the following relief and hereby demands a jury in this cause for all
matters so appropriate. Claims for Relief
Count One: Defendant Moss Point Violates Plaintifrs Rights By Jailing Her Because She Cannot Afford A Money Payment Prior to a First Court Appearance.
42. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-41. 43. 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. Defendant Moss Point violates Plaintiffs rights by placing and keeping her in jail when she cannot afford to pay the amount of money set by the generic secured bail "schedule" used by Moss Point.
Request for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the other Class members request that this Court issue the following relief: a. A declaratory judgment that the Defendant City violates the named Plaintiffs and Class members' constitutional rights by jailing them and keeping them in jail when they cannot pay a generically set amount of money to secure release after an arrest; b. An order and judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendant Moss Point from enforcing the unconstitutional post-arrest money-based detention policies and practices against the named Plaintiff and the Class of similarly situated people that she represents; c. A judgment individually compensating the individual named Plaintiff for the damages that she suffered as a result of the City's unconstitutional and unlawful conduct, including damages resulting from her confinement in jail; d. An order and judgment granting reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and any other relief this Court deems just and proper.
10

Case 1:15-cv-00182-LG-RHW Document 1 Filed 06/12/15 Page 11 of 11
Director, MacArthur Justice Center at the University ofM ississippi School of Law P.O. Box 1848 University, MS 38677-1 848 Tele: (602) 915-7629 cjohnson@macarthutjustic.org Jacob W. Howard, MSB ~ 11/o):)S~ Of Counsel, MacArthur Justice Center at the Un iversity of Mississ ippi School of Law 767 North Congress Street Jackson, MS 39202 Tele: (60 I) 969-0802, Ext. 204 Fax: (601) 969-0804 j h o w a r d@ macarthutju s ti c e.o r g A lec Karakatsan is (D.C. Bar No. 999294) (Pro Hac Vice App lication Pending) Co-Founder Equal Justice Under Law 9 16 G Street, NW Su ite 701 Washington, DC 2000 I (202)-681-2409 alec @ equa lju s ticeunderl a w.o rg Attorneys.for Plaint[ffs
II

 
 Case 1:15-cv-00182-LG-RHW Document 18 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 2

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

)

CHEVON ELIZABETH THOMPSON et a!.)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MOSS POINT, MISSISSIPPI,

)

)

Defendant.

)

_________________________ )

Case No. 1:15cv182LG-RHW

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT The use of a secured bail schedule to set the conditions for release of a person in custody after arrest for an offense that may be prosecuted by the City of Moss Point implicates the protections of the Equal Protection Clause when such a schedule is applied to the indigent. No person may, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, be held in custody after an arrest because the person is too poor to post a monetary bond. If the government generally offers prompt release from custody after arrest upon posting a bond pursuant to a schedule, it cannot deny prompt release from custody to a person because the person is financially incapable of posting such a bond. See Pugh v. Rainwater, 572 F.2d 1053 (5111 Cir. 1978) (en bane); Lee v. Lawson, 375 So. 2d 101 9, 1023 (Miss. 1979); Pierce v. City of Velda City, 4-15-cv-570-HEA (Doc. 16) (E.D. Mo. June 3, 2015) (issuing Declaratory Judgment); Cooper v. City ofDothan, 1: 15-cv-425-WKW (M.D. Ala. June 18, 20 15) (Doc. 7) (granting Temporary Restraining Order); see also, e.g., United States Department of Justice, Statement of Interest at 1, Varden v. City of Clanton, 2: 15-cv-34-MHT

Case 1:15-cv-00182-LG-RHW Document 18 Filed 11/06/15 Page 2 of 2
(Doc. 26) (February 13, 20 15) (stating that the use of secured bail schedules to detain the indigent "not only violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, but also constitutes bad public policy").
0 LJL
This the day of November, 2015.

 
 Case 1:15-cv-00182-LG-RHW Document 19 Filed 11/12/15 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSJSSIPPI
~-~ 2015] FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ~J.. EO SOUTHERN DIVISION

) CHEVON ELIZABETH THOMPSON, et al.)
)

ARTHUR JOHNSTON

BY

DEPUTY

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

) Case No. 1:15cv1 82LG-RHW

MOSS POINT, MISSISSIPPI,

)

)

Defendant.

) (Class Action)

)

FINAL JUDGMENT Based on the representations of the Parties, the Court orders the following: 1. The Parties to the Settlement Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 1 are ordered to comply with the terms set forth therein. 2. The Plaintiffs' claims are hereby dismissed with prejudice subject only to the ongoing authority of this Court to enforce its injunction as set forth below. 3. The named Plaintiff and her counsel agree to notify counsel for the City of Moss Point upon the discovery of any perceived breach of this agreement or the Court's Judgment, to give the City of Moss Point a reasonable amount of time to cure such alleged breach, and to seek relief from the Court for such alleged breach only after such notice and a failure to cure within a reasonable time. 4. The Court further orders as follows:
a. The City of Moss Point and all of its officers, employees, and agents shall not utilize secured money bail for persons in the custody of the City on arrest,

Case 1:15-cv-00182-LG-RHW Document 19 Filed 11/12/15 Page 2 of 2

either without a warrant or on the initial warrant issued, for any offense that may be prosecuted by the City. 1

b. The City of Moss Point and all of its officers, employees, and agents shall offer every person in the custody of the City on arrest, either without a warrant or on the initial warrant issued, for any violation that may be prosecuted by the City, release from the custody of the City upon execution of Signature Bond or Personal Recognizance Bond. The City and any City agent will utilize the fonn drafted by the Municipal Court (or its material equivalent) attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit 1, as well as comply with the procedures set forth therein, including the procedures to be
followed if a person violates the terms of the recognizance bond.

c. Upon release, the City of Moss Point shall notify all arrestees in wntmg regarding the time, date, and place at which they are required to appear in
court, if any.

d. The City of Moss Point shall not jail any person for non-payment of any monetary sum from fines, costs, fees, or bond revocations unless the constitutional procedures set forth in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 67273 (1983), and Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507, 2519 (2011 ), have been
complied with.

e. The City of Moss Point shall notify counsel for the Plaintiff as soon as practicable if any employee or agent of the City violates the terms of this
agreement.

~ay Ordered this the I).

ofNovember, 2015.

1 For the purposes of this Final Judgment, the term "secured" money bail means a monetary sum that must be paid or posted as a precondition of release from custody. The term "recognizance" means a person's release upon their promise to appear in court at a later date.
2

Case 1:15-cv-00182-LG-RHW Document 19-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 1 of 5

Nov 021 5 09: 14a

Ma rk V. Knigh te n, Esq.

2287690166

p. 5

AGREEMENT TO SETILE ALL EQUITABLE ClAIMS GOMB NOW the undersigned parties and, for good and valuable consideration, enter into this Agreement regarding Case No. 1:15-cv-00182-LG-RHW, Chevon Thompson v. City of Moss Point) now pen~g in the U.S. District C..ourt, Southern District of Mississippi (the "Lawsojt11). WHEREAS the name.d Plaintiff Chevon Thompson :filed the Lawsuit while sbe was in the custody of the City of Moss Point after an attest for misdemeanor offenses, alleging that the City had a policy and practice which UD1awfully kept her in the custody of the City because she . could not affurd to post a cash bond pursuant to an established schedule for each ~eged offense; and "WllliREAS the City of Moss Point denies such allegations and any liability for the claims raised by the Plaintiff; and WHEREAS, the parties enter into this Agreement in an effort to resolve this case efficiently, fairly, and without costly litigation. NOW, THEREFORE_~ the parties agtee to th.e following: 1. The parties ag~:ee to the entry of a final judgment as to all declaratory and
injunctive relief as set out herein. The parties have entered into a separate agreement w resolve the other claims brought in this case and agree to comply with tbat agreement.
2. Subject to approval by the Cour~ and supported by the bciefing submitted previously, the parties agree to request the enb:y of a declaratory judgment as follows:
The use of a secured baU ~chedule to set the conditions fur release of a person in custody after arrost for an offense that may be prosecuted by the City of Moss Point :implicates the protections of the Equal .Protection Clause when such a schedule is applied to the indigent, No person may1 consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitutio~ be held in custody after an arrest because the person is too poor to post a monetary bond. If the govemxnent generally offers
EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:15-cv-00182-LG-RHW Document 19-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 2 of 5

Nov 021 5 09:14a

Mark V. Kn ighte n, Esq.

2287690 166

p.6

prompt release from custody after mest upon posting a bond pursuant to a schedule, it

cannot deny prompt release from custody to a person because the person is financially

incapable of posting such a bond. See Pugh v. Rainwater~ 572 F.2d 1053 (S1h Cir. 1978)

(en bane); Lee v. Lawson, 375 So. 2d 1019, 1023 (Miss. 1.9?9); Jones v. CiJy ojClantorl,

2: 15-cv-34-MB.T (M.D. Ala. September 15, 2015) (Doc. 16) (issuing :final judgment and

opinion declaring post-arrest detention based on secured bail unconstitutional without a

bearing on. indigence); Pierce v. City of Velda City, 4-1~-570-HEA (Doc. 16) (E.D.

Mo. June 3, 2015) (issuing Declaratory Judgment condemning post-arrest detention of

the indigent based on secwed bail); Cooper v. City ofDothan, 1:15-cv-425-WKW (M.D.

Ala. June 18, 2015) (Doc. 7) (granting Temporary Restraining Order and finding that

post-arrest detention based on preset secured bail that the arrestee could not afford was

likely unconstitutional); see also, e.g., United States Depa:rtment of Justice, Statement of

Interest at 1, Varden v. City ofClanton, 2:15·cv-34-MliT (Doc. 26) (February 13, 2015)

(stating that the use of secured bail to detain the indigent "not only violates fue

Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, but also C<Jnstitutes bad public

policy'').

·

3. T.he named Plaintiff and her undersigned counsel agree to notify COllllSel for the City of Moos Point upon the discovery of any perceived breach of this agreement or the Court's
Judgment, tO give the City of Moss Point a reasonable amount of time to co.re such alleged
breacb, and to seek relief from the Court for such alleged breach only after sach .notice and a failure oo cure within a reasonable time.

4. The City of Moss Point· agrees to the followlng, unless and tmtil otherwise
ordered by the Court:

a. The City of Moss Point and all of its officers, employees, and agents will not utilize secured money bail for persons in the custody of the City on arrest, eithet without a warrant or on the initial warrant issued, for any offense that may be prosecuted by !he City.1
b-. The Oty of Moss Point and all of its officers, employees, and agents will offer every person in the L"1Jstody of the City on arrest, either without a warrant or on the initial wmant issued> fer any violation that may be prosecuted by the City, Jelease from tho custody of the City upon e.:x.ecution of Signature Bond or Personal Recognizance Bo.ncl. The City and a:n.y City agent will ntill.zo the f01m drafted by the Municipal Court (or its material equivalent) attached hereto as Exhibit 1> as well as comply with the procedures set forth therein,
1For the purposes ofthis agreement. the term "secllred" money bail means a monetary swn that
a must be paid or posted as a precondition of release from custody. The term "recognizance''
means a petS()nts release upon their promise to appear in court at later date.

2

Case 1:15-cv-00182-LG-RHW Document 19-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 3 of 5

Nov021509: 15a

Mark V. Kn ighten, Esq.

2287690166

p.7

including the procedures to be followed if a person violates the terms of the
recognizance bond. . c. The City of Moss Point will notify all arrestees in writing upon release of the
time, date1 and place at which they are required to appe'clr in court, if any. d. The City of Moss Point shall not jail any person for non-payment of aoy
monetary sum from fines, oosts, fees, or bond revocaUons unless the constitutional procedures set forth inl3earden v. Georgia) 461 U.S. 660, 67273 (1983), and Tumer v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507~ 2519 (2011)~ have beBn complied with. e. The City of Moss Point will llotify counsel fur the Plaintiff as soon as practicable if any employee or agent of the City violates the tenns of this agreement.
5. The parties agree that, shortly after the claim~ and'issues in this case were brought to the attention of the City of Moss Point, the City and its.counsel acted quickly an.d responsibly
with the Plaintiffs~ counsel, without admitting any fault or liability, to put in place a system of
post-arrest release that complies with the foregoing requirements. which Plaintiff agrees romplies witll the United States Constitution.
6. The parties agree to submit a proposed judgment consistent with their agreement on the equitable claims to the Court, on condition that if the Court is not wiJJing to issue such judgment consistent therewith, then such proposal sbnll be void and they shall thereupon confer
in good faith to attempt w uddress the Court's concerns while still effectuating the intent and
approach of this Agreement. Iftho Court does not issue orders and judgment with the COllSent of the parties after such additionnl efforts, then upon .notice from either party to the other, this Agreement shall be void and the parties shall resume litigation of all claims and defeii.Se.S herein.

Alec Karakatsanis
Equal Justice Under Law
601 PennsylvBllia Avenue NW South Building, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20004

10/19/2015
date

3

Case 1:15-cv-00182-LG-RHW Document 19-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 4 of 5

Nov021 509:1 5a

Mark V. Knighten, Esq.

2287690 166

p.8

JJ)ill?@~

H-'I'"'JPVn

date

Ma

Justice Center

Unive.rs.iLy of Mississippi School of Law

481 Chucky Mullins-Drive

University, Mississippi 38677

COUNSELFDR PlAINTIFF

PLAINTIFF

Dogan & ilkinSOll, PLLC 734 Delmas Avenue P!lScngoula, Mississippi 39567
COUNSEL FOR DEFBNDANf

JDj.;).J /)s-
dat.er 1

4

Case 1:15-cv-00182-LG-RHW Document 19-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 5 of 5

CONDITIONS OF SIGNATURE/RECOGNIZANCE BOND(S) IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF MOSS POINT, MISSISSIPPI
Name ofDefendant: ______________________________________________________ You Have Been Arrested for the Following Alleged Offense(s): _______________________

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

1. You must appear before the Municipal Cout1 of Moss Point, 4329 Mcinnis Street, Moss

Point, Mississippi on the __ day of

, at 9:00 a.m.

2. You must also appear before the Municipal Court of Moss Point, Mississippi as ordered by the Cout1 for any subsequent hearings.

3. If you were atTested for simple assault, domestic violence or trespassing, you shall have NO CONTACT with the alleged victim(s). This means that you must STAY AWAY from the alleged victim(s). It also means that you must not call, text, email or otherwise
contact the alleged victim(s).

4. You must STAY AWAY from any place of business where you were arrested for shoplifting or any other crime.

Your failure to follow the conditions set forth above may result in your arrest and temporary detention. Within 48 hours of being detained for an alleged failure to comply with the conditions set forth above, you shall be offered an opportunity to rebut the allegations or to demonstrate good cause for your non-compliance at hearing before the Municipal Court. If no hearing is held within 48 hours of your detention, you shall be released with instructions to appear before the Municipal Court on a specified date.

If the Municipal Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that you willfully violated one or more of the conditions set forth above, without good cause, your bond may be revoked and you may be incarcerated until your case reaches disposition.

Acknowledgment of Bond Conditions

I,

, the Defendant, hereby acknowledge

that the conditions set fot1h above have been explained to me and I agree to abide by them. I

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

bond being revoked and my incarceration until the next cout1 date fo llowing my arrest.

DEFENDANT

DATE

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-182 As of: 11/13/2015 11:52 AM CST 1 of 4
CLOSED,RHW
U.S. District Court Southern District of Mississippi (Southern) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:15−cv−00182−LG−RHW

Thompson v. Moss Point, Mississippi Assigned to: Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/12/2015 Date Terminated: 11/12/2015 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Chevon Elizabeth Thompson

represented by J. Cliff Johnson MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER − University Director, University of Mississippi School of Law P. O. Box 1848 University, MS 38677−1848 662−915−6863 Email: cjohnson@macarthurjustice.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alec Karakatsanis − PHV EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW 916 G Street NW, #701 Washington, DC 20001 202/681−2409 Email: alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

V. Defendant Moss Point, Mississippi

represented by Amy Lassitter St. Pe' DOGAN &WILKINSON, PLLC P. O. Box 1618 Pascagoula, MS 39568−1618 228/762−2272 Email: astpe@dwwattorneys.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/12/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Moss Point, Mississippi (Filing fee $ 400; receipt number 14643007013), filed by Chevon Elizabeth Thompson. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Declaration of Chevon Thompson, # 3 Exhibit 2 − secured bail schedule)(JCH) (Entered: 06/12/2015)

Case: 1:15-cv-182 As of: 11/13/2015 11:52 AM CST 2 of 4

06/12/2015 06/12/2015 06/12/2015
06/12/2015 06/12/2015 06/12/2015 06/15/2015 06/15/2015 06/15/2015 06/15/2015 06/15/2015 06/15/2015 06/15/2015 06/15/2015 06/16/2015

2 MOTION to Certify Class by Chevon Elizabeth Thompson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Johnson, J.) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Chevon Elizabeth Thompson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Johnson, J.). Added MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order on 6/12/2015 (JCH). (Entered: 06/12/2015)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 2 and # 3. 1.) Pursuant to Fed.R.Cr.P. Rule 49(d) and Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 84, appendix form 2 states that date, signature, address, e−mail address and telephone number are used at the conclusion of pleadings and other papers that require a signature. Documents are undated (on respectfully submitted portion), but the date will be construed as the date of electronic filing. Attorney is advised to follow this rule in future filings. DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 3. This document requests several motion reliefs. Every motion relief should be selected from the list of motion titles or each relief docketed separately. The same PDF document may be used for all motion filing entries. It is not necessary to refile as court staff has made the necessary correction. Attorney is advised to follow this procedure in future filings. (JCH) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
4 Summons Issued as to Moss Point, Mississippi. (JCH) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
5 MOTION for Alec Karakatsanis to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Chevon Elizabeth Thompson. (Attachments: # 1 − Certificates of Good Standing)(JCH) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid by Alec Karakatsanis $ 100, receipt number 14643007014. (JCH) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #2 and #3: L.U.Civ.R. 7(b)(2) requires that all supporting exhibits to a document be denominated by an exhibit letter or number and a meaningful description. Attorney is advised to follow this rule in future filings. (RLW) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
6 ORDER granting 5 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Alec Karakatsanis shall be admitted pro hac vice to serve as co−counsel for the plaintiff Chevon Elizabeth Thompson. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on June 15, 2015. (Joffe, Scherry) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
7 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Motions by Chevon Elizabeth Thompson re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, 2 MOTION to Certify Class (Johnson, J.) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
8 MOTION to Certify Class by Chevon Elizabeth Thompson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Declaration of Alec Karakatsanis)(Johnson, J.) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
9 MEMORANDUM in Support re 8 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Chevon Elizabeth Thompson (Johnson, J.) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
10 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order or in the Alternative, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Chevon Elizabeth Thompson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Statement of Interest of the United States, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Order in Pierce v. Velda City)(Johnson, J.) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
11 MEMORANDUM in Support re 10 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order or in the Alternative MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Chevon Elizabeth Thompson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Statement of Interest of the United States, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Order in Pierce v. Velda City)(Johnson, J.) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
12 ATTACHMENT re 9 Memorandum in Support of Motion Exhibit 1 − Declaration of Alec Karakatsanis by Chevon Elizabeth Thompson (Johnson, J.) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER finding as moot 2 Motion to Certify Class. The Motion has been withdrawn. (See ECF No. 7). NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 6/16/2015 (JSM) (Entered: 06/16/2015)

Case: 1:15-cv-182 As of: 11/13/2015 11:52 AM CST 3 of 4

06/16/2015
06/16/2015 06/16/2015 06/19/2015 07/13/2015 07/21/2015 07/21/2015 08/31/2015 09/01/2015 09/29/2015 09/30/2015 10/14/2015
10/14/2015 10/14/2015
10/14/2015 11/06/2015

TEXT ONLY ORDER finding as moot 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; finding as moot 3 Motion for TRO. The Motions have been withdrawn. (See ECF No. 7). NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 6/16/2015 (JSM) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #7 thru #12: There is only one plaintiff in this lawsuit, therefore, et al. should not be listed on pleadings (RLW) Modified on 6/16/2015 to delete extra verbiage (RLW). (Entered: 06/16/2015)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #3, #8, #10 and #12: Pleadings or exhibits should not be filed with the old blue headings at the top of the page(s). (RLW) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by Jacob W. Howard on behalf of Chevon Elizabeth Thompson (Howard, Jacob) (Entered: 06/19/2015)
14 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Chevon Elizabeth Thompson Moss Point, Mississippi served on 6/18/2015, answer due 7/9/2015. (Johnson, J.) (Entered: 07/13/2015)
15 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by Moss Point, Mississippi (St. Pe', Amy) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 15 unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Moss Point, Mississippi answer due 8/31/2015. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on July 21, 2015. (Joffe, Scherry) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
16 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by Moss Point, Mississippi (St. Pe', Amy) (Entered: 08/31/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 16 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Moss Point, Mississippi answer due 9/30/2015. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on September 1, 2015. (Joffe, Scherry) (Entered: 09/01/2015)
17 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by Moss Point, Mississippi (St. Pe', Amy) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 17 unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Moss Point, Mississippi answer due 10/14/2015. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on September 30, 2015. (Joffe, Scherry) (Entered: 09/30/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER finding as moot 8 Motion to Certify Class in light of the correspondence from counsel received this date advising the Court that the parties have reached a settlement. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 10/14/2015 (JSM) (Entered: 10/14/2015)
NOTICE of Settlement by All Parties per email notification from defense counsel Amy St. Pe' who advised that the case settled. The attorneys are to submit a proposed agreed Order of Dismissal to Judge Guirola no later than November 9, 2015. (SR) (Entered: 10/14/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER finding as moot 10 Motion for TRO; finding as moot 10 Motion for Preliminary Injunction in light of the correspondence from counsel received this date advising the Court that the parties have reached a settlement. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 10/14/2015 (JSM) (Entered: 10/14/2015)
NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 11/16/2015 03:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker. Plaintiff will place the telephone call to Judge Walker's chambers with all necessary counsel on the line. (SR) (Entered: 10/14/2015)
18 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 11/6/2015. (JCH) (Entered: 11/06/2015)

Case: 1:15-cv-182 As of: 11/13/2015 11:52 AM CST 4 of 4

11/12/2015

19 FINAL JUDGMENT: This matter has settled and is dismissed. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. on 11/12/15 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Agreement to Settle all Equitable Claims) (RLW) (Entered: 11/12/2015)