USDC IN/ND Case: 1:15-cv-402 As of: 05/19/2020 06:47 PM EDT 1 of 13 CASREF,TERMED
U.S. District Court Northern District of Indiana [LIVE] USDC Northern Indiana (Fort Wayne)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:15−cv−00402−TLS−SLC

Wilson v. Allen County et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann Referred to: Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Mediator
Daniel J Sigler

Date Filed: 12/31/2015 Date Terminated: 04/01/2020 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Calvin Wilson individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Christopher C Myers Christopher C Myers & Associates 809 S Calhoun St Ste 400 Fort Wayne, IN 46802 260−424−0600 Fax: 260−424−0712 Email: cmyers@myers−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David W Frank Neighborhood Christian Legal Clinic − FW/IN 347 W Berry St Ste 101 Fort Wayne, IN 46802 260−456−8972 Fax: 260−456−8983 Email: dfrank@nclegalclinic.org TERMINATED: 07/23/2019

Skyler B Spurling−Newsome Christopher C Myers & Associates 809 S Calhoun St Ste 400 Fort Wayne, IN 46802 260−424−0600 Fax: 260−424−0712 TERMINATED: 09/27/2017

Plaintiff
David Blume individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 08/29/2017

represented by David W Frank (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2017
Skyler B Spurling−Newsome (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2017

Plaintiff
Asia Marshall individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 02/05/2020

represented by Asia Marshall 4526 Redstone Court Fort Wayne, IN 46835 260−415−1512 PRO SE

David W Frank (See above for address)

USDC IN/ND Case: 1:15-cv-402 As of: 05/19/2020 06:47 PM EDT 2 of 13 TERMINATED: 10/29/2018
Skyler B Spurling−Newsome (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/27/2017

V. Defendant Allen County TERMINATED: 08/19/2016
Defendant Allen County Board of Commissioners
Defendant

represented by J Spencer Feighner Haller & Colvin PC 444 E Main St Fort Wayne, IN 46802−1910 260−426−0444 Fax: 260−422−0274 Email: jsf@hallercolvin.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura L Maser Beers Mallers Backs & Salin LLP − FW/IN 110 W Berry St Ste 1100 Fort Wayne, IN 46802 260−426−9706 Fax: 260−420−1314 Email: laura.maser@allencounty.us TERMINATED: 08/19/2016
represented by G William Fishering Beers Mallers Backs & Salin LLP − FW/IN 110 W Berry St Ste 1100 Fort Wayne, IN 46802 260−426−9706 Fax: 260−420−1314 Email: gwfishering@beersmallers.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J Spencer Feighner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James P Posey Beers Mallers Backs & Salin LLP − FW/IN 110 W Berry St Ste 1100 Fort Wayne, IN 46802 260−426−9706 Fax: 260−420−1314 Email: jpposey@beersmallers.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura L Maser (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

USDC IN/ND Case: 1:15-cv-402 Allen County Council

As of: 05/19/2020 06:47 PM EDT 3 of 13 represented by J Spencer Feighner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James P Posey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Allen County Public Defender Board

represented by J Spencer Feighner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James P Posey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John O Feighner Haller & Colvin PC 444 E Main St Fort Wayne, IN 46802−1910 260−426−0444 Fax: 260−422−0274 Email: jfeighner@hallercolvin.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/31/2015
12/31/2015 01/04/2016 01/06/2016
01/06/2016
02/03/2016 02/03/2016 02/03/2016

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT with JURY DEMAND against All Defendants, filed by Calvin Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Proposed Summons, # 6 Proposed Summons, # 7 Proposed Summons, # 8 Proposed Summons, # 9 Exhibit USM Form, # 10 Exhibit USM Form, # 11 Exhibit USM Form, # 12 Exhibit USM Form, # 13 Civil Cover Sheet)(Frank, David) (Entered: 12/31/2015)
2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by 4 copies of summons forms and 4 copies of USM−285 forms by Plaintiff Calvin Wilson. (Frank, David) (Entered: 12/31/2015)
Chief Judge Philip P Simon and Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins added. NEW CASE, MOTION PENDING. (kjp) (Entered: 01/04/2016)
3 ORDER GRANTING 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; WAIVING the filing fee; and DIRECTING, pursuant to 28:1915(d), the USMS to effect service of process on the defendants. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 1/6/2016. (lhc)(cc: USMS) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
4 Summons Issued as to Allen County, Allen County Board of Commissioners, Allen County Council, Allen County Public Defender Board. NOTE:The attached document is accessible by court personnel only. Summons forms that were electronically submitted to the court for issuance will be returned to counsel via e−mail. (lhc)(cc: USMS) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by USM obo Calvin Wilson. Allen County served on 1/15/2016, answer due 2/5/2016. (cer) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by USM obo Calvin Wilson. Allen County Council served on 1/15/2016, answer due 2/5/2016. (cer) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by USM obo Calvin Wilson. Allen County Public Defender Board served on 1/15/2016, answer due 2/5/2016. (cer) (Entered:

USDC IN/ND Case: 1:15-cv-402 As of: 05/19/2020 06:47 PM EDT 4 of 13 02/03/2016)

02/03/2016

8 SUMMONS Returned Executed by USM obo Calvin Wilson. Allen County Board of Commissioners served on 1/15/2016, answer due 2/5/2016. (cer) (Entered: 02/03/2016)

02/03/2016

9 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint, by Plaintiff Calvin Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit First Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit IFP − Class Plaintiff Blume)(Frank, David) (Entered: 02/03/2016)

02/09/2016 10 NOTICE of Appearance by Laura L Maser on behalf of Allen County, Allen County Board of Commissioners (Maser, Laura) (Entered: 02/09/2016)

02/09/2016 11 NOTICE of Appearance by J Spencer Feighner on behalf of Allen County Public Defender Board (Feighner, J) (Entered: 02/09/2016)

02/09/2016 12 NOTICE of Appearance by John O Feighner on behalf of Allen County Public Defender Board (Feighner, John) (Entered: 02/09/2016)

02/09/2016 13 NOTICE of Appearance by James P Posey on behalf of Allen County Council (Posey, James) (Entered: 02/09/2016)

02/10/2016

14 NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Rule 16 Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for 3/14/2016 10:30 AM in US District Court − Fort Wayne before Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins. Court to initiate call.(mr) (Entered: 02/10/2016)

02/10/2016 15 MAGISTRATE JUDGE CONSENT FORMS sent to all parties (Standard Track). (mr) (Entered: 02/10/2016)

02/10/2016 16 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by Defendant Allen County Public Defender Board. (Feighner, J) (Entered: 02/10/2016)

02/10/2016

17 ENTRY for Magistrate Judge Susan Collins: The unopposed 16 Agreed Motion for Extension of Time is granted. Dfts granted to and including 3/28/2016 to file their responses to Pla's 1 Complaint. So Ordered. (mr) (Entered: 02/10/2016)

02/23/2016

18 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 9 Motion to Amend: it is GRANTED in that the Clerk is DIRECTED to show Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (DE 9−1) filed; Plaintiffs request to remove the jury demand is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins on 2/23/16. (mc) (Entered: 02/23/2016)

02/23/2016

19 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Allen County, Allen County Board of Commissioners, Allen County Council, Allen County Public Defender Board, filed by Calvin Wilson.(mc) (Entered: 02/23/2016)

03/10/2016 20 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Posey, James) (Entered: 03/10/2016)

03/14/2016

21 TELEPHONIC RULE 16 PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 3/14/2016 before Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins. Pla appeared by atty David Frank. Dfts appeared by attys Laura Maser, James Posey and Spencer Feighner. The 20 Report of the Parties Planning Meeting is approved in all respects (except dispositive motions deadline and establishment of a trial date) and is hereby made an ORDER of the Court. The Summary Judgment deadline in Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(b) SHALL NOT control. Any dispositive motion SHALL brief out in accordance with L.R. 56−1. DISCOVERY DEADLINE is 2/20/2017. Following the close of discovery, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the assigned District Judge will establish all further deadlines and dates. Daniel Sigler appointed as Mediator. Atty Posey to notify Mediator by letter, copy to Attys Frank, Maser and Feighner. Results of the Mediation shall be filed with the Court no later than 10 days before the Final Pretrial Conference. Magistrate Consent forms due by 4/4/2016. (FTR 1st floor.) (mr) (Entered: 03/14/2016)

03/28/2016 22 ANSWER to 19 Amended Complaint by Allen County, Allen County Board of Commissioners.(Maser, Laura) (Entered: 03/28/2016)

03/28/2016 23 Defendant Allen County Council's ANSWER to 19 Amended Complaint by Allen County Council.(Posey, James) (Entered: 03/28/2016)

03/2U8/S20D1C6 IN/2N4D ACNasSeW:E1R:1t5o-1c9vA-4m0e2ndeAdsCoofm: p0l5ai/n1t9b/y20A2ll0en0C6o:4un7tyPPMubEliDc DTefe5ndoefr13 Board.(Feighner, J) (Entered: 03/28/2016)

04/27/2016

25 Second MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint, by Plaintiffs David Blume, Calvin Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Second Amended Complaint)(Frank, David) (Entered: 04/27/2016)

05/17/2016

26 ORDER GRANTING 25 MOTION (Second) to Amend 1 Complaint by Plaintiffs David Blume, Calvin Wilson. Clerk DIRECTED to show Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (DE [25−1) filed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins on 5/17/16. (cer) (Entered: 05/17/2016)

05/17/2016

27 CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against Allen County, Allen County Board of Commissioners, Allen County Council, Allen County Public Defender Board filed by Calvin Wilson, David Blume.(cer) (Entered: 05/17/2016)

05/19/2016

28 *REFILED at 29 * Defendant Allen County Council's ANSWER to 27 Amended Complaint by Allen County Council.(Posey, James) Modified on 5/20/2016 show refiling due to missing page 25 on this entry (lhc). (Entered: 05/19/2016)

05/20/2016

29 Defendant Allen County Council's ANSWER to 27 Amended Complaint, by Allen County Council.(Posey, James) Modified on 5/20/2016 to reflect correct doc link (lhc). (Entered: 05/20/2016)

05/20/2016 30 NOTICE of Appearance by Skyler B Spurling−Newsome on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Spurling−Newsome, Skyler) (Entered: 05/20/2016)

05/31/2016 31 ANSWER to 27 Amended Complaint (Second) by Allen County, Allen County Board of Commissioners.(Maser, Laura) (Entered: 05/31/2016)

06/08/2016 32 ANSWER to 27 Amended Complaint (Second) by Allen County Public Defender Board.(Feighner, J) (Entered: 06/08/2016)

06/09/2016 33 MOTION to Certify Class and BRIEF IN SUPPORT by Plaintiffs David Blume, Calvin Wilson. (Frank, David) (Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/23/2016

34 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 33 MOTION to Certify Class and BRIEF IN SUPPORT by Defendant Allen County Public Defender Board. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Feighner, J) (Entered: 06/23/2016)

07/06/2016

35 RESPONSE to Motion re 34 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 33 MOTION to Certify Class and BRIEF IN SUPPORT and Brief in Support filed by David Blume, Calvin Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to C)(Frank, David) (Entered: 07/06/2016)

07/20/2016

36 REPLY to Response to Motion re 34 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 33 MOTION to Certify Class and BRIEF IN SUPPORT filed by Allen County Public Defender Board. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Feighner, J) (Entered: 07/20/2016)

07/20/2016 37 OBJECTION by David Blume, Calvin Wilson to 36 Reply to Response to Motion, as Untimely Filed. (Frank, David) (Entered: 07/20/2016)

07/22/2016

38 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS OBJECTION TO THE FILING OF DEFENDANTS REPLY by Allen County Public Defender Board to 37 Objection . (Feighner, J) (Entered: 07/22/2016)

07/29/2016

39 NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic hearing on 34 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Pla's Motion for Class Certification set for 8/4/2016 at 9:30 AM in US District Court − Fort Wayne before Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins. Court to initiate call.(mr) (Entered: 07/29/2016)

08/04/2016

40 TELEPHONIC HEARING re 34 Dfts' Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to 33 Pla's Motion for Class Certification held on 8/4/2016 before Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins. Plas appeared by atty David Frank. Dfts appeared by attys Laura Maser, James Posey, John Feighner and Spencer Feighner. Arguments heard. For reasons stated on the record, Court grants motion for limited purpose of Dfts to conduct depositions of two selected class representatives. Dfts granted to and

USDC IN/ND Case: 1:15-cv-402 As of: 05/19/2020 06:47 PM EDT 6 of 13 including 9/19/2016 to respond to 33 Pla's Motion for Class Certification. Plas to file reply brief by 9/26/2016. (FTR 1st floor.) (mr) (Entered: 08/04/2016)

08/11/2016

41 Third MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint, by Plaintiffs David Blume, Calvin Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Third Amended Complaint)(Frank, David) (Entered: 08/11/2016)

08/11/2016

42 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 33 MOTION to Certify Class and BRIEF IN SUPPORT by Plaintiffs David Blume, Calvin Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit First Amended Motion for Class Certification)(Frank, David) (Entered: 08/11/2016)

08/19/2016

43 RESPONSE to Motion re 41 Third MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint, Joint Response of Defendants filed by Allen County Public Defender Board. (Feighner, John) (Entered: 08/19/2016)

08/19/2016

44 ORDER GRANTING 41 Third MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint, by Plaintiffs David Blume, Calvin Wilson. The Clerk is DIRECTED to show Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint (DE 41 −1) filed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins on 8/19/2016. (lhc) (Entered: 08/22/2016)

08/19/2016

45 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT against Allen County Board of Commissioners, Allen County Council, Allen County Public Defender Board, filed by Asia Marshall, Calvin Wilson, David Blume.(lhc) (Entered: 08/22/2016)

08/24/2016 46 Defendant Allen County Council's ANSWER to 45 Amended Complaint by Allen County Council.(Posey, James) (Entered: 08/24/2016)

08/30/2016

47 ORDER GRANTING 42 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 33 MOTION to Certify Class and BRIEF IN SUPPORT by Plaintiffs David Blume, Calvin Wilson. Clerk is DIRECTED to show Plaintiffs' First Amended Motion for Class Certification (DE 42 −1) filed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins on 8/30/2016. (lhc) (Entered: 08/30/2016)

08/30/2016 48 Plaintiffs' First Amended MOTION for Class Certification by Plaintiffs David Blume, Asia Marshall, Calvin Wilson. (lhc) (Entered: 08/30/2016)

08/31/2016 49 ANSWER to 45 Amended Complaint by Allen County Board of Commissioners.(Maser, Laura) (Entered: 08/31/2016)

09/13/2016 50 ANSWER to 45 Amended Complaint by Allen County Public Defender Board.(Feighner, J) (Entered: 09/13/2016)

09/19/2016

51 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 48 MOTION to Certify Class by Defendant Allen County Board of Commissioners. (Maser, Laura) (Entered: 09/19/2016)

09/20/2016

52 ENTRY for Magistrate Judge Susan Collins: 51 Dfts' Joint Motion for Extension of Time is granted. Dfts granted to and including 10/31/2016 to respond to 48 Plas' Motion for Class Certification. So Ordered.(mr) (Entered: 09/20/2016)

10/20/2016

53 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery , MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 52 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, 21 Rule 16 Preliminary Pretrial Conference,,,, by Plaintiffs David Blume, Asia Marshall, Calvin Wilson. (Frank, David) (Entered: 10/20/2016)

10/20/2016

54 NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic hearing re 53 Joint Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines set for 10/28/2016 at 10:00 AM in US District Court − Fort Wayne before Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins. Court to initiate call.(mr) (Entered: 10/20/2016)

10/28/2016

55 TELEPHONIC HEARING re 53 Joint Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines held on 10/28/2016 before Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins. Plas appeared by atty David Frank. Dfts appeared by attys Laura Maser, James Posey, and John Feighner. Court grants motion. Plas' expert witness disclosures and reports to be delivered to the Dfts by 2/20/2017. Dfts expert witness disclosures and reports to be delivered to the Plas by 3/20/2017. Discovery deadline extended to and including 4/20/2017. Dfts to Respond to 48 Plas' First Amended Motion for Class Certification by 2/4/2017. (FTR 1st floor.) (mr) (Entered: 10/28/2016)

10/3U1/S20D1C6 IN/5N6D LCeattseer :fr1o:m15D-acnvi-e4l 0J.2SigAlesr aodfv:i0si5n/g1o9f/2m0e2di0at0io6n:4sc7hePdMuleE. (DlhTc) (E7notefr1ed3: 11/01/2016)

02/06/2017

57 OBJECTION by Allen County, Allen County Board of Commissioners, Allen County Council, Allen County Public Defender Board to 48 MOTION to Certify Class . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Posey, James) (Entered: 02/06/2017)

02/10/2017 58 REPLY to Response to Motion re 48 MOTION to Certify Class filed by David Blume, Asia Marshall, Calvin Wilson. (Frank, David) (Entered: 02/10/2017)

02/15/2017 59 REPORT of Mediation by Dan L Sigler advising that resolution was not achieved.(lhc) (Entered: 02/15/2017)

02/20/2017 60 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Plaintiffs David Blume, Asia Marshall, Calvin Wilson. (Frank, David) (Entered: 02/20/2017)

02/24/2017 61 OBJECTION by Allen County Council to 60 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery . (Posey, James) (Entered: 02/24/2017)

03/01/2017

62 NOTICE of Hearing: In−person hearing on 60 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery set for 3/6/2017 11:30 AM in US District Court − Fort Wayne before Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins. (mr) (Entered: 03/01/2017)

03/03/2017

63 REPLY to Response to Motion re 60 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by David Blume, Asia Marshall, Calvin Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ACPDB Discovery 1 of 3, # 2 Exhibit ACPDB Discovery 2 of 3, # 3 Exhibit ACPDB Discovery 3 of 3, # 4 Exhibit Initial Disclosures Identifying Lefstein, # 5 Exhibit Lefstein CV, # 6 Exhibit Lefstein Study 1, # 7 Exhibit Lefstein Study 2)(Frank, David) (Entered: 03/03/2017)

03/06/2017

64 HEARING re Plas' 60 Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines held on 3/6/2017 before Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins. Plas appeared by attys David Frank and Christopher Myers. Dfts appeared by attys James Posey, Laura Maser, and Spencer Feighner. Arguments heard. Dft Allen Co Council's unopposed oral motion to stay discovery pending ruling on 48 Plas' First Amended Motion for Class Certification is denied. For reasons stated on the record, Court grants in part Plas' 60 Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines. Plas' expert witness disclosures and reports to be delivered to the Dfts by 4/14/2017. Dfts expert witness disclosures and reports to be delivered to the Plas by 5/15/2017. Discovery deadline extended to and including 6/15/2017. (FTR 1st floor.)(mr) (Entered: 03/06/2017)

04/19/2017

65 MOTION to Supplement 48 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiff Calvin Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit FRCP 26(a)(2) Report)(Frank, David) (Entered: 04/19/2017)

05/01/2017

66 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann for all further proceedings. Judge Philip P Simon no longer assigned to case. Magistrate Consent forms due by 5/22/2017. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 5/1/17. (jld) (Entered: 05/01/2017)

05/12/2017

67 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Rule 26(a)(2) Expert Witness Report by Defendants Allen County Board of Commissioners, Allen County Council, Allen County Public Defender Board. (Posey, James) (Entered: 05/12/2017)

05/12/2017

68 ENTRY for Magistrate Judge Susan Collins: Pla's unopposed 65 Motion for Leave to File Expert Witness Report in Support of Motion for Class Certification is granted. So Ordered.(mr) (Entered: 05/12/2017)

05/12/2017

69 ENTRY for Magistrate Judge Susan Collins: 67 Dfts' Joint Motion for Extension of Time is granted. Dfts expert witness disclosures and reports to be delivered to the Pla by 5/29/2017. So Ordered. (mr) (Entered: 05/12/2017)

05/30/2017

70 MOTION for Leave to File Expert Witness Report in Opposition of Motion for Class Certification by Defendants Allen County, Allen County Board of Commissioners, Allen County Council, Allen County Public Defender Board. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Feighner, J) (Entered: 05/30/2017)

05/3U1/S20D1C7 IN/7N1D ECNaTsRe:Y1f:o1r5M-cavg-is4t0ra2te JAudsgeofS:u0s5an/1C9o/l2li0n2s:0T0he6:u4n7opPpMoseEdD70TMo8tioonf 1fo3r Leave to File Expert Witness Report in Opposition of Motion for Class Certification is granted. Dfts granted leave to supplement their response to Plas' Motion for Class Certification with their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(1)(2) expert witness report. So Ordered. (mr) (Entered: 05/31/2017)

06/14/2017

72 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery /Extend Close of Discovery by Defendants Allen County Board of Commissioners, Allen County Council, Allen County Public Defender Board. (Posey, James) (Entered: 06/14/2017)

06/14/2017

73 NOTICE of Hearing: In−person hearing on 72 Dfts' Joint Motion to Extend the Close of Discovery set for 6/20/2017 11:00 AM in US District Court − Fort Wayne before Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins. (mr) (Entered: 06/14/2017)

06/20/2017 74 NOTICE of Appearance by G William Fishering on behalf of Allen County Board of Commissioners (Fishering, G) (Entered: 06/20/2017)

06/20/2017

75 HEARING re 72 Dfts' Joint Motion to Extend the Close of Discovery held on 6/20/2017 before Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins. Plas appeared by atty David Frank. Dfts appeared by attys James Posey, William Fishering and Spencer Feighner. Court grants unopposed motion and extends discovery deadline to 9/13/2017. Status Conference set for 9/13/2017 at 10:00 am in US District Court Fort Wayne before Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins. (FTR 1st floor.) (mr) (Entered: 06/20/2017)

08/14/2017

76 OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DENIES, WITH LEAVE TO REFILE, the Plaintiff's First Amended Motion for Class Certification 48 . The Court GRANTS the Defendants until 9/15/2017, to file their Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 8/14/2017. (jss) (Entered: 08/15/2017)

08/14/2017

Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants to file Motion to Dismiss by 9/15/2017 (jss) (Entered: 08/15/2017)

08/16/2017 77 STIPULATION to Dismiss Plaintiff Blume by Plaintiffs Asia Marshall, Calvin Wilson, David Blume. (Frank, David) (Entered: 08/16/2017)

08/29/2017

78 CASE DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE AGAINST David Blume, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 77 Stipulation to Dismiss. (jlb) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

09/12/2017 79 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Defendant Allen County Public Defender Board. (Feighner, John) (Entered: 09/12/2017)

09/12/2017

80 ORDER for Magistrate Judge Susan Collins: The 79 Joint Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline will be heard at the Status Conference set for 9/13/2017 at 10:00 am. Text entry order.(mr) (Entered: 09/12/2017)

09/13/2017

81 STATUS CONFERENCE and hearing on 79 Joint Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline held on 9/13/2017 before Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins. Plas appeared by atty David Frank. Dfts appeared by attys Spencer Feighner, Laura Maser and James Posey. For reasons stated on the record, Court grants motion. Deadline for discovery to be extended 60 days and deadline for Dfts to respond to Plas' written expert discovery to be extended 30 days from Court's issuance of an order re the motion to dismiss that Dfts anticipate filing by 9/15/2017. (FTR 1st floor.) (mr) (Entered: 09/15/2017)

09/15/2017

82 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint by Defendants Allen County Board of Commissioners, Allen County Council, Allen County Public Defender Board. (Posey, James) (Entered: 09/15/2017)

09/15/2017

83 MEMORANDUM in Support of 82 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint filed by Allen County Board of Commissioners, Allen County Council, Allen County Public Defender Board. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Posey, James) (Entered: 09/15/2017)

09/25/2017

84 RESPONSE to Motion re 82 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint filed by Asia Marshall, Calvin Wilson. (Frank, David) (Entered: 09/25/2017)

09/25/2017 85 BRIEF in Opposition to 82 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint filed by Asia Marshall, Calvin Wilson. (Frank, David) (Entered: 09/25/2017)

09/2U7/S20D1C7 IN/8N6D MCaOsTeIO: 1N:1to5W-cvit-h4d0ra2w aAs sAtotof:rn0e5y/b1y9/P2la0i2nt0iff0s6D:4av7idPBMluEmDe,TAsi9a Mofar1s3hall, Calvin Wilson. (Spurling−Newsome, Skyler) (Entered: 09/27/2017)

09/27/2017

87 ORDER for Magistrate Judge Susan Collins: The 86 Motion to Withdraw is granted. The appearance of Attorney Skyler B Spurling−Newsome is hereby withdrawn on behalf of Plas. Text entry order.(mr) (Entered: 09/27/2017)

09/28/2017

88 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 85 Brief in Opposition by Plaintiffs Asia Marshall, Calvin Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit First Amended Brief, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Order)(Frank, David) (Entered: 09/28/2017)

09/29/2017

89 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 84 Response to Motion by Defendants Allen County Board of Commissioners, Allen County Council, Allen County Public Defender Board. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Posey, James) (Entered: 09/29/2017)

10/02/2017

90 NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic hearing on 89 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply set for 10/3/2017 at 2:30 PM in US District Court − Fort Wayne before Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins. Court to initiate call.(mr) (Entered: 10/02/2017)

10/03/2017

91 TELEPHONIC HEARING re 89 Dfts' Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply held on 10/3/2017 before Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins. Plas appeared by atty David Frank. Dfts appeared by attys James Posey, Spencer Feighner and Laura Maser. Arguments heard. Court grants 89 Joint Motion for Extension of Time. The deadline is extended for the Dfts to file a reply to the Plas' Response to Dfts' Motion to Dismiss to 7 days from the date the Court rules on the 88 Pls' Motion for Leave to File First Amended Brief. (FTR 1st floor.) (mr) (Entered: 10/03/2017)

10/12/2017

92 RESPONSE to Motion re 88 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 85 Brief in Opposition filed by Allen County Board of Commissioners. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Affidavit of Randall Hammond)(Feighner, John) (Entered: 10/12/2017)

10/19/2017

93 REPLY to Response to Motion re 88 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 85 Brief in Opposition filed by Asia Marshall, Calvin Wilson. (Frank, David) (Entered: 10/19/2017)

03/27/2018

94 OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 88 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 85 Brief in Opposition filed by Calvin Wilson, Asia Marshall. Defendants have to and including 4/17/2018 to file a reply to the Motion to Dismiss (DE #82). Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 3/27/18. (ksp) (Entered: 03/27/2018)

04/17/2018

95 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 85 Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion by Defendants Allen County Board of Commissioners, Allen County Council, Allen County Public Defender Board. (Posey, James) (Entered: 04/17/2018)

04/18/2018

96 ORDER for Magistrate Judge Susan Collins: 95 Defendants' Unopposed Joint Motion for Extension of Deadline is granted. Defendants granted to and including 5/17/2018 to file a reply to Plaintiffs' First Amended Brief in Support of Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion. Text entry order. (mr) (Entered: 04/18/2018)

05/14/2018

97 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 85 Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion by Defendants Allen County Board of Commissioners, Allen County Council, Allen County Public Defender Board. (Posey, James) (Entered: 05/14/2018)

05/15/2018

98 ORDER for Magistrate Judge Susan Collins: 97 Dfts' Second Unopposed Joint Motion for Extension of Time is granted. Dfts granted to and including 6/18/2018 to file a reply to Plas' First Amended Brief in Support of Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion. Text entry order. (mr) (Entered: 05/15/2018)

06/18/2018

99 MOTION to Vacate 98 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, by Defendants Allen County Board of Commissioners, Allen County Council, Allen County Public Defender Board. (Posey, James) (Entered: 06/18/2018)

06/20/2018

100 ORDER for Magistrate Judge Susan Collins: 99 Dfts' Unopposed Motion to Vacate Deadline to File Reply is granted. The Court STAYS further briefing on the 82 Motion to Dismiss due to the parties' report that they have reached a settlement in principal. Text entry order.(mr) (Entered: 06/20/2018)

07/U19S/2D01C8IN1/N01D CNaOsTeI:C1E:1o5f -Hceva-r4in0g2: TeAlesphoof:ni0c5S/t1a9tu/s2C0o2n0fe0re6n:4ce7sPetMforE8D/2T2/201108oaft 1103:00 AM in US District Court − Fort Wayne before Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins. Court to initiate call.(mr) (Entered: 07/19/2018)

08/22/2018

102 TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE held on 8/22/2018 before Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins. Plas appeared by atty David Frank. Dfts appeared by attys John Feighner, Spencer Feighner, James Posey and Laura Maser. Atty Frank advises Pla(s) reviewing settlement agreement. Counsel for Dfts report case was settled and will file a motion to enforce settlement in event Pla Asia Marshall does not sign the agreement. Further telephonic Status Conference set for 10/3/2018 at 10:00 am. Court to initiate call. Status Conference to be converted to hearing on motion to enforce settlement in event one is filed. (FTR 1st floor.) (mr) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

09/10/2018

103 ORDER FOR CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L SPRINGMANN: Pursuant to the parties' report that they have reached a settlement, the Court TERMS the 82 Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint WITH LEAVE TO REINSTATE after the scheduled status conference, if necessary. (cer) (Entered: 09/10/2018)

09/18/2018

104 MOTION for Settlement Defendants' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement by Defendants Allen County Board of Commissioners, Allen County Council, Allen County Public Defender Board. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavit)(Posey, James) (Entered: 09/18/2018)

09/20/2018 105 LETTER emailed to Judge Collins chambers on 9/19/2018 by Plaintiff, Asia Marshall (mr) (Entered: 09/20/2018)

09/20/2018 106 Letter from Asia Marshall regarding attorney. (sct) (Entered: 09/20/2018)

09/20/2018 107 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Asia Marshall by Plaintiff Calvin Wilson. (Frank, David) (Entered: 09/20/2018)

09/25/2018 108 ORDER for Magistrate Judge Susan Collins: The Court on its own motion VACATES the telephonic Status Conference set for 10/3/2018 at 10:00 am. Text entry order.(mr) (Entered: 09/25/2018)

09/25/2018

109 ORDER FOR CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L SPRINGMANN: Telephonic Status Conference SET for 10/18/2018 at 01:00 PM (INDIANA EASTERN TIME) in US District Court − Fort Wayne before Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann. Court will initiate call. (cer) (Entered: 09/25/2018)

10/01/2018 110 MOTION to Continue and Reschedule Telephonic Status Conference by Defendant Allen County Council. (Posey, James) (Entered: 10/01/2018)

10/02/2018

111 ORDER FOR CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L SPRINGMANN: The Court being duly advised GRANTS Dft's 110 Unopposed Motion to Reschedule Telephonic Status Conference. Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/18/2018 is VACATED and RESET to 10/29/2018 at 10:30 AM (INDIANA EASTERN TIME) in US District Court − Fort Wayne before Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann. Court will initiate call. Should any of the parties find it necessary to file a motion to continue the telephonic conference, counsel are to include in the motion several dates of availability. (cer) (Entered: 10/02/2018)

10/02/2018 112 REPORT by Calvin Wilson . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Frank, David) (Entered: 10/02/2018)

10/25/2018 113 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher C Myers on behalf of Calvin Wilson (Myers, Christopher) (Entered: 10/25/2018)

10/29/2018 114 REPORT by Asia Marshall, Calvin Wilson Supplemental Report to the Court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Myers, Christopher) (Entered: 10/29/2018)

10/29/2018

115 TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE held on 10/29/2018 before Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann. Pla Calvin Wilson appeared by and with attys David Frank and Christopher Myers. Pla Asia Marshall appeared on her own behalf. Dfts appeared by attys J. Spencer Feighner, John Feighner, Laura Maser and James Posey. Parties advise as to case status. Pla Calvin Wilson confirms he wishes to have attys David Frank and Christopher Myers continue to represent him, that he has no objection to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and that he agrees to continue in the case in an individual capacity and as class representative. Pla Asia Marshall requests that attys

USDC IN/ND Case: 1:15-cv-402 As of: 05/19/2020 06:47 PM EDT 11 of 13 David Frank and Christopher Myers withdraw their appearance. The Court GRANTS 107 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for reasons stated on the record. Pla Asia Marshall is proceeding pro se and is given until 11/30/2018 in which to retain counsel or file a written document advising the Court as to why the Settlement Agreement should not be approved. Court KEEPS UNDER ADVISEMENT 104 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Telephonic Status Conference SET for 1/25/2019 at 02:00 PM (INDIANA EASTERN TIME) in US District Court − Fort Wayne before Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann. Court will initiate call. (cc: Asia Marshall). (Court Reporter FTR.) (cer) (Entered: 10/29/2018)

11/19/2018 116 PETITION for Relief by Plaintiff Asia Marshall. (lhc) (Entered: 11/20/2018)

11/26/2018 117 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Asia Marshall re 116 Petition for Relief. (lns) (Entered: 11/26/2018)

12/03/2018 118 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 116 MOTION for Relief by Defendant Allen County Public Defender Board. (Feighner, J) (Entered: 12/03/2018)

12/05/2018 119 RESPONSE to Motion re 116 MOTION for Relief filed by Calvin Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Myers, Christopher) (Entered: 12/05/2018)

12/10/2018

120 ORDER for Magistrate Judge Susan Collins: The 118 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Pla's Petition for Relief is granted. Dfts, Allen County Council, the Board of Commissioners of the County of Allen, and the Allen County Public Defender Board are granted to and including 12/13/2018 to respond to Pla's 116 Petition for Relief. Text entry order. (mr) (Entered: 12/10/2018)

12/13/2018 121 RESPONSE to Motion re 116 MOTION for Relief filed by Allen County Board of Commissioners, Allen County Council, Allen County Public Defender Board. (Posey, James) (Entered: 12/13/2018)

12/20/2018 122 REPLY to Response to Motion re 116 MOTION for Relief filed by Asia Marshall. (lns) (Entered: 12/20/2018)

01/04/2019

123 ORDER FOR CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L SPRINGMANN: On the Court's own motion due to a scheduling conflict the Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/25/2019 is VACATED and RESET to 2/5/2019 at 10:30 AM (INDIANA EASTERN TIME) in US District Court − Fort Wayne before Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann. Court will initiate call. (cer) (Entered: 01/04/2019)

02/05/2019

124 TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE held on 2/5/2019 before Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann. Pla Calvin Wilson appeared by atty David Frank. Pla Asia Marshall appeared Pro Se. Dfts appeared by attys J. Spencer Feighner, John Feighner, Laura Maser and James Posey. Parties advise as to case status. Pla Asia Marshall confirms that she continues to represent herself. Court anticipates issuing a ruling in approximately 30 days re 104 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. (cc: Asia Marshall). (Court Reporter FTR.) (cer) (Entered: 02/05/2019)

05/01/2019 125 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Holly A Brady for all further proceedings. Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann no longer assigned to case. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 5/1/2019. (rs) (Entered: 05/01/2019)

05/09/2019 126 MOTION for Order on Motion to Enforce and Other Relief by Plaintiff Calvin Wilson. (Myers, Christopher) (Entered: 05/09/2019)

05/10/2019 127 MOTION to assign new Judge, request for order on motion to dismiss enforcement of settlement and request for order on motion to grant petition for relief by Plaintiff Asia Marshall. (mrm) (Entered: 05/10/2019)

05/10/2019 128 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge William C Lee for all further proceedings. Judge Holly A Brady no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Holly A Brady on 5/10/19. (cc: Asia Marshall). (cer) (Entered: 05/10/2019)

05/14/2019 129 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann for all further proceedings. Judge William C Lee no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 5/14/2019. (copy mailed to pro se party) (lns)

USDC IN/ND Case: 1:15-cv-402 As of: 05/19/2020 06:47 PM EDT 12 of 13 Modified on 5/14/2019 to add routing (lns). (Entered: 05/14/2019)

07/17/2019

130 ORDER: On May 14, 2019, the case was transferred back to Judge Springmann. The Court anticipates ruling on the pending Motions [ECF Nos. 104 and 116] within fifteen (15) days.Therefore 126 MOTION for Order on Motion to Enforce and Other Relief and 127 MOTION to assign new Judge, request for order on motion to dismiss enforcement of settlement and request for order on motion to grant petition for relief are DENIED as MOOT. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 7/17/2019. (rs) (Entered: 07/17/2019)

07/17/2019 131 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Plaintiff Calvin Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Order)(Frank, David) (Entered: 07/17/2019)

07/23/2019 132 ORDER for Magistrate Judge Susan Collins: The 131 Motion to Withdraw is granted. The appearance of Atty David W Frank is hereby withdrawn on behalf of Pla. Text entry order.(mr) (Entered: 07/23/2019)

07/25/2019

133 ORDER: Defendants' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement 104 is DENIED. Plaintiff Asia Marshall's Petition for Relief 116 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; to the extent it asks the Court to decline to enforce the settlement agreement, it is GRANTED; all other relief is DENIED. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint 82 was terminated only because the parties reported they had reached a settlement. Therefore, the Defendants are granted until 08/26/2019 to re−file their Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 07/25/2019. (jat) (Entered: 07/25/2019)

08/26/2019 134 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Allen County Board of Commissioners, Allen County Council, Allen County Public Defender Board. (Feighner, J) (Entered: 08/26/2019)

08/26/2019

135 STRICKEN per 136 Proposed Pretrial Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion to Dismiss by Allen County Board of Commissioners, Allen County Council, Allen County Public Defender Board. (Feighner, J) Modified on 9/5/2019 (rs). (Entered: 08/26/2019)

09/05/2019

136 ORDER FOR CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L SPRINGMANN. The Court being duly advised GRANTS 134 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion to Dismiss. Motion to dismiss to be filed by 9/9/2019. The Court STRIKES 135 as improperly filed.(rs) (Entered: 09/05/2019)

09/09/2019 137 MOTION to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint by Defendants Allen County Board of Commissioners, Allen County Council, Allen County Public Defender Board. (Posey, James) (Entered: 09/09/2019)

09/09/2019

138 MEMORANDUM in Support of 137 MOTION to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint filed by Allen County Board of Commissioners, Allen County Council, Allen County Public Defender Board. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Posey, James) (Entered: 09/09/2019)

10/09/2019

139 ORDER regarding 137 MOTION to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint filed by Allen County Public Defender Board, Allen County Board of Commissioners, Allen County Council. Because Plaintiff Asia Marshall is proceeding without counsel, the Court ORDERS that the deadline for Plaintiff Asia Marshall to file her response to the Defendants Motion to Dismissthe Third Amended Complaint [ECF No. 45] is extended to October 25, 2019. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 10/9/19. (Copy mailed to pro se party Asia Marshall)(mlc) (Entered: 10/10/2019)

02/05/2020

140 OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 137 MOTION to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint filed by Allen County Public Defender Board, Allen County Board of Commissioners, Allen County Council and ORDERING that the claims brought by Plaintiff Asia Marshall individually are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. The case remains pending as to Plaintiff Calvin Wilson. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 2/5/2020. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(bas) (Entered: 02/05/2020)

03/04/2020 141 ORDER FOR CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L SPRINGMANN; Telephonic Status Conference SET for 4/9/2020 10:00 AM (CENTRAL TIME) in US District Court − Hammond before Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann. Court to initiate the call. Unless

USDC IN/ND Case: 1:15-cv-402 As of: 05/19/2020 06:47 PM EDT 13 of 13 an appropriate stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.41(a)(1) is filed. (rs) (Entered: 03/04/2020)

03/30/2020 142 *STRICKEN pursuant to 143 * Joint MOTION to Dismiss With Prejudice by Plaintiff Calvin Wilson. (Myers, Christopher) Modified on 4/1/2020 (lhc). (Entered: 03/30/2020)

03/31/2020

143 OPINION AND ORDER: The Court STRIKES the Stipulation to Dismiss 142 . The Court GRANTS the parties leave to file a motion to dismiss with or without prejudice as outlined in Order. The Court REAFFIRMS the telephonic status conference set for 4/9/2020, at 10:00 a.m. (central time) to be initiated by the Court, unless the parties file the necessary documentation for dismissal prior to that date. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 3/31/2020. (lhc) (Entered: 04/01/2020)

04/01/2020 144 STIPULATION to Dismiss by Plaintiff Calvin Wilson. (Myers, Christopher) (Entered: 04/01/2020)

04/01/2020

CASE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure re 144 Revised Stipulation of Dismissal. (rs) (Entered: 04/01/2020)

 
 USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-PPS-SLC document 1 filed 12/31/15 page 1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION

CALVIN WILSON,

)

individually and behalf of all others

)

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

ALLEN COUNTY, ALLEN COUNTY )

COUNCIL, ALLEN COUNTY BOARD )

OF COMMISSIONERS, and ALLEN

)

COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER BOARD, )

)

Defendants.

)

CASE NO.

COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Calvin Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, allege as follows against Defendants Allen County, Allen County Council, Allen County Board of Commissioners, and Allen County Public Defender Board:
I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 13(a)
of Article 1 of the Indiana State Constitution guarantee indigent defendants charged with crimes the right to effective assistance of counsel. The right is fundamental and essential to a fair trial. See Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963); Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972); Winn v. State, 232 Ind. 70, 111 N.E.2d 653 (Ind. 1953). 2. The right of an indigent defendant to effective assistance of counsel has been long recognized in the State of Indiana. See Webb v. Baird, 6 Ind. 13, 18 (Ind. 1854).1

1 “It is not to be thought of in a civilized community . . . that any citizen put in jeopardy of life or liberty should be debarred of counsel because he is too poor to employ such aid. No court could be expected to respect itself to sit

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-PPS-SLC document 1 filed 12/31/15 page 2 of 18
3. Defendants, who operate the public defense system of Allen County, Indiana, have a duty to ensure individuals charged with crimes, including misdemeanor crimes, are provided effective assistance of counsel.
4. However, Defendants for years in Allen County have operated a constitutionally and structurally deficient public defender system for indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes. Systemic failures are numerous and include in particular excessive attorney caseloads. These failures have led to the denial of effective assistance of counsel.
5. Despite knowing of the deficiencies of their public defense system, including excessive attorney caseloads, Defendants have failed to take reasonable steps to protect the constitutional rights of those affected.
6. As a result, indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes in Allen County have suffered and continue to suffer harm as a result of Defendants’ violations of their constitutional rights.
7. Therefore, Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit for injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent further constitutional violations and to protect the constitutional rights of all indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes in the courts of Allen County. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This suit is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation of rights secured by the United States Constitution and the Indiana State Constitution.
9. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a). 10. This Court has the authority to enter declaratory judgment and to provide preliminary and
and hear such a trial.”
2

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-PPS-SLC document 1 filed 12/31/15 page 3 of 18
permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 11. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b). Defendants have offices within the district and the events and omissions that have given rise to and continue to give rise to Plaintiff’s injuries occurred and continue to occur within this district.
III. THE PARTIES 12. Class Plaintiff Calvin Wilson is an Allen County, Indiana resident and an indigent
individual charged with a misdemeanor crime in Allen County. Plaintiff Wilson has been assigned an attorney from the Allen County Public Defender’s Office. Plaintiff Wilson faces the loss of liberty through incarceration or other detention and the loss of thousands of dollars should he be convicted of or plead guilty to his charge. In his case,2 Plaintiff Wilson’s assigned attorney:
a. Has a caseload consisting of hundreds of additional misdemeanor cases; b. Has not meaningfully conducted any legal research into Plaintiff Wilson’s case; c. Has not meaningfully investigated Plaintiff Wilson’s charges; d. Has not filed any substantive motions in Plaintiff Wilson’s case; e. Has not held one (1) confidential meeting with Plaintiff Wilson outside a
courthouse; and f. Has devoted less than one (1) hour in whole to the defense of Plaintiff Wilson’s
charge. 13. Defendant Allen County is a constitutional body of the State of Indiana wherein the rights
2 State of Indiana v. Calvin L Wilson, Case No. 02D05-1507-CM-002566 (Allen Co., Ind. Super. Ct. filed July 6, 2015).
3

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-PPS-SLC document 1 filed 12/31/15 page 4 of 18
of the accused must be secured. The Allen County Public Defender’s Office is an agency of Defendant Allen County. 14. Defendant Allen County Council is the elected body of Allen County that sets budgets, appropriates funds, and makes final financial decisions for Allen County and its agencies. These agencies include the Allen County Public Defender’s Office. Defendant Allen County Council, along with Allen County Board of Commissioners, is responsible for approving staffing levels at the Allen County Public Defender’s Office. 15. Defendant Allen County Board of Commissioners is the elected body of Allen County that serves as the county’s executive and legislative branches, makes and passes laws, sets employee polices, and signs service contracts for county agencies. These agencies include the Allen County Public Defender’s Office. 16. Defendant Allen County Public Defender Board is the appointed body of Allen County that supervises and manages the county’s public defense system, primarily through the Allen County Public Defender’s Office.
IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 17. Class Plaintiff Wilson (“Class Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to Federal Civil Rule
of procedure 23(a) and (b)(2) on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated (collectively, “Class Members”) as members of the following proposed Class:
All individuals who have or will have misdemeanor criminal cases pending in the courts of Allen County, Indiana, who have or will have an attorney assigned to them due to indigency and have not been convicted or entered into a plea agreement. 18. The Class is so numerous that individuals joinder of all Class Members is impracticable. At any point in time, thousands of individuals have misdemeanor criminal cases pending
4

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-PPS-SLC document 1 filed 12/31/15 page 5 of 18
in Allen County courts, at least hundreds of which are indigent and rely on an appointed attorney due to indigency. 19. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class. The questions of law and fact common to all Class Members include but are not limited to:
a. Whether Defendants have a duty to provide indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes in Allen County effective assistance of counsel; and
b. Whether Defendants have breached their duties. 20. Class Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class. 21. Class Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. There are no
conflicts between the Class Plaintiffs and other Class Members. Class Plaintiff will vigorously prosecute this action on behalf of the Class. Class Plaintiff is represented by competent counsel, Christopher C. Myers & Associates, who will vigorously prosecute the case on behalf of the Class. 22. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that are generally applicable to the entire Class. 23. The claims asserted in this complaint are capable of repetition while evading review. 24. There is continuing and substantial public interest in these matters.
V. FACTS A. Defendants’ Have a Duty to Provide Effective Assistance of Counsel for Indigent Individuals Charged with Misdemeanor Crimes in Allen County 25. The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 13(a) of Article 1 of the Indiana State Constitution guarantee indigent individuals charged with crimes, including misdemeanor crimes, the right to effective assistance of counsel.
5

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-PPS-SLC document 1 filed 12/31/15 page 6 of 18
26. Defendants have a constitutional duty to provide indigent individuals charged with misdemeanors crimes in Allen County effective assistance of counsel.
27. To ensure effective assistance of counsel for indigent individuals in Indiana, state statute provides that counties generally must establish systems for the provision of public defense at the trial court level. Ind. Code Ann. §§ 33-40-7-1 et seq.
28. Defendant Allen County has chosen to provide for indigent criminal representation primarily through the Allen County Public Defender’s Office. This office is supervised and managed by Defendant Allen County Public Defender Board. Id.; Allen County, Ind. Code § 1-17-1 et seq.
29. By statute, the Allen County Public Defender’s Office must have staff necessary to operate the services of a public defender. Ind. Code Ann. § 33-40-7-7(2). Staffing levels are to be recommended by Defendant Allen County Public Defender Board and approved by Defendants Allen County Council and Allen County Board of Commissioners. Id.
30. Defendant Allen County Board of Commissioners established Defendant Allen County Public Defender Board by ordinance in 2003 to provide for the legal representation as required by law of indigent individuals charged with crimes in the county. Allen County, Ind. Code § 1-17-1. The duties of the Allen County Public Defender Board include preparing a comprehensive plan for indigent defense services, establishing policy and procedures for the provision of such services, monitoring the expenditures of the Allen County Public Defender’s Office, and recommending an annual operating budget to Defendant Allen County Council. Id. at 1-17-3, 4.
31. By state statute and county ordinance, Defendant Allen County Public Defender Board
6

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-PPS-SLC document 1 filed 12/31/15 page 7 of 18
adopted Allen County’s Comprehensive Plan for Indigent Defense Services in 2003 to establish how the county would operate its public defense system. The Comprehensive Plan is attached and incorporated into this complaint as Exhibit A. 32. The county’s Comprehensive Plan for Indigent Defense Services provides that:
a. The Allen County Public Defender’s Office will be the “primary method of providing criminal defense services in Allen County.” Id. at 1.
b. The Allen County Public Defender’s Office will comply with legal representation standards established by the state. Id. These standards, known as the Indiana Public Defender Commissions Standards for Indigent Defense Services, are attached and incorporated into this complaint as Exhibit B.
c. Attorneys for the Allen County Public Defender’s Office will not carry excessive caseloads that “interfere with the rendering of quality representation or lead to the breach of professional obligations.” Exhibit A at 6.
d. Attorneys for the Allen County Public Defender’s Office handling misdemeanor cases on a part-time basis will generally not carry more than 150 cases within a twelve-month period. Id. This caseload limit mirrors state standards. Ex. B at 14-16.
e. Attorneys for the Allen County Public Defender’s Office will notify the managing attorney of their office, the County Public Defender, if their caseloads become excessive. Ex. A at 6.
f. The County Public Defender will notify county judges “and refuse to accept the appointment of additional cases” when attorney caseloads become excessive. Id.
7

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-PPS-SLC document 1 filed 12/31/15 page 8 of 18
at 6-7.3
B. Defendants’ are Systemically Failing to Provide Effective Assistance of Counsel for Indigent Individuals Charged with Misdemeanor Crimes in Allen County
33. Defendants under the U.S. and Indiana constitutions, Indiana statute, local ordinance, state
standards, and their own comprehensive plan of operation are systemically failing to
provide effective assistance of counsel to indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor
crimes in Allen County.
i. Defendants fail to properly staff and fund misdemeanor cases
34. Approximately 5,800 criminal misdemeanor cases are filed in Allen County courts
annually, according to Indiana Division of State Court Administration. Of those, about
one-third to one-quarter are assigned to attorneys with the Allen County Public Defender’s
Office. See Exhibit C.4
35. Defendants, however, fail to properly staff and fund public defense for misdemeanor
clients. Among other things:
a. The Public Defender’s Office employs no full-time attorneys to represent indigent
individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes. Id.
b. The Public Defender’s Office devotes a very small amount of its expenditures to
3 The limitation on caseload sizes is critical to the operation of an effective county public defender office. According to the Indiana Public Defender Commission, “Not even the most able and industrious lawyers can provide quality representation when their workloads are unmanageable. Excessive caseloads, moreover, lead to attorney frustration, disillusionment by clients, and undermine the integrity of the adversary system of criminal justice.” Ex. B at 17. 4 This exhibit collects Allen County’s 2010 to 2014 end-of-the-year reports to the Indiana Public Defender Commission, which include indigent defense expenditures and caseloads. The purpose of these reports is to request reimbursement from the state for legal expenses. Indiana counties cannot currently request state reimbursement for misdemeanor cases. In each and every one of these reports, Allen County acknowledges that its misdemeanor attorneys are carrying excessive caseloads. In none of these reports does Allen County propose to redress excessive caseloads or request any state assistance, financial or otherwise, for excessive caseloads.
8

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-PPS-SLC document 1 filed 12/31/15 page 9 of 18
counsel for misdemeanor criminal clients. The amount expended on salaries for misdemeanor attorneys ranges from between 1 and 3 percent of the office’s total spending. Id. c. The Public Defender’s Office contracts with only three part-time attorneys, and at times a fourth, for the more than 1,500 misdemeanor criminal cases it is assigned every year. Id. d. Part-time misdemeanor public defense attorneys earn between $8,000 and $24,000 annually, despite each handling hundreds of public defense cases and hundreds of other cases in their private practices. Id. ii. Defendants’ misdemeanor attorney caseloads are grossly excessive 36. Attorneys with the Allen County Public Defender’s Office assigned to misdemeanor cases carry caseloads that are so excessive as to render effective assistance of counsel impossible. Among other things: a. Part-time misdemeanor attorneys carry caseloads that are double, triple, or even quadruple the maximum 150 cases allowed by the standards of the Indiana Public Defender Commission and Defendants’ own Comprehensive Plan for Indigent Defenses Services. See Ex. A, B, and C. b. In 2014, the average part-time misdemeanor attorney’s caseload ranged between 343 and 560 cases, which is representative of the years surveyed from 2010 to 2014. Ex. C. In 2010 and again 2011, at least one attorney for the given year represented over 600 indigent misdemeanor criminal cases. Id. c. Additionally, each of Defendants’ part-time misdemeanor attorneys maintain active
9

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-PPS-SLC document 1 filed 12/31/15 page 10 of 18
private law practices, greatly expanding the number of clients they represent overall. d. To be sure, between January 1, 2013 and August 1, 2015, Defendants’ four active part-time misdemeanor attorneys appeared on more than 6,250 cases between their public defense work and private practice clients. One attorney alone appeared on more than 1,950 cases. All attorneys each appeared at least 1,100 cases. A spreadsheet of these cases is attached as Exhibit D and incorporated into this complaint. iii. Defendants fail to provide indigent misdemeanor clients with adequate counsel and staff services 37. Defendants’ lack of investment in the public defense of misdemeanor clients is reflected in the few legal services offered them. Among other things: a. Attorneys generally do not devote sufficient time to prepare and legally advise clients; b. Attorneys generally do not devote sufficient time to analyze the facts or law pertinent to clients’ charges; c. Attorneys rarely invest more than one (1) hour of time in each of their cases; d. Attorneys rarely file motions in cases, except to request continuances of time; e. Attorneys rarely meet with clients except briefly and immediately prior to hearings; f. Attorneys rarely meet with clients in a confidential setting outside a courthouse; g. Attorneys rarely meet with clients while clients are in custody; h. Attorneys rarely succeed, or even seek, to have all charges dismissed in a case; i. Attorneys very rarely take cases to trial;
10

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-PPS-SLC document 1 filed 12/31/15 page 11 of 18
j. Attorneys rarely, if ever, sufficiently investigate charges made against their clients; and
k. The bulk of attorneys’ representation generally consists of a brief attorney-client meeting inside a courthouse to recommend that the client accept the plea agreement offered by a prosecutor.
38. Further: a. Attorneys have never, even though required by the county’s Comprehensive Plan for Indigent Services, notified the County Public Defender that their caseloads have become excessive; and b. The County Public Defender, though having actual knowledge of excessive caseloads, has never notified county judges of excessive caseloads nor refused to accept the appointment of additional cases based upon excessive caseloads as required by the county’s Comprehensive Plan for Indigent Services.
39. Additionally, Defendants maintain few support personnel to assist with legal services for clients charged with misdemeanor crimes. Among other things: a. Defendants’ Public Defender’s Office self-identifies as an office with “inadequate support staff,” see Ex. C; b. Defendants’ employ zero paralegals in the Public Defender’s Office for all of its more than thirty attorneys, including misdemeanor attorneys; c. Defendants’ employ one (1) secretary in the Public Defender’s Office for all of its more than thirty attorneys, including misdemeanor attorneys; and d. Though Defendants’ employ seven (7) investigators in the Public Defender’s
11

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-PPS-SLC document 1 filed 12/31/15 page 12 of 18
Office, they generally devote no to little time to investigating the charges against misdemeanor clients. C. Defendants’ Know They are Systemically Failing to Provide Effective Assistance of Counsel to Indigent Misdemeanor Clients but have not Taken Corrective Action 40. Defendants know they have provided and continue to provide indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes ineffective assistance of counsel. 41. However, Defendants have not sought to increase funding for misdemeanor public defense or sought to meaningfully supervise or correct the system despite their duties to do so. Among other things: a. Defendant Allen County Council has not allocated necessary funds to provide effective assistance of counsel to indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes; b. Defendant Allen County Board of Commissioners has not passed laws to ensure that the county provides constitutionally effective assistance of counsel to indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes; and c. Defendant Allen County Public Defender Board has not adequately supervised the Allen County Defender’s Office and recommended annual budgets as to provide effective assistance of counsel to misdemeanor clients. 42. Defendants, as a whole, have taken little or no action to properly fund, regulate, or manage public defense in Allen County is such a way to provide effective assistance of counsel to indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes, even though they are regularly notified of systematic failures, including excessive attorney caseloads. D. Defendants’ Systemic Failure to Provide Effective Assistance of Counsel is
12

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-PPS-SLC document 1 filed 12/31/15 page 13 of 18
Harming Class Members 43. Defendants have breached their constitutional duties to provide adequate public defense to
Class Members. This has deprived Class Members of, among other things: a. Adequate advise, consultation, and communication with attorneys; b. The ability to make informed decisions about their legal rights; c. Meaningful opportunity to present defenses against charges; d. Proper attorney assistance prior to waiving of rights; and e. Proper, prompt, and accurate information regarding plea alternatives, jail alternatives, and consequences of plea agreements and criminal sentences.
E. Defendants’ Systemic Failure to Provide Effective Assistance of Counsel is Harming Class Plaintiff 44. Because Defendants have breached their constitutional duties by establishing and perpetuating a public defense system that deprives indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes of the effective assistance of counsel, Class Plaintiff is suffering harm. 45. Class Plaintiff Wilson is suffering harm and his constitutional rights are being violated do to the acts and omissions of Defendants. Among other things:
a. On July 6, 2015, Plaintiff Wilson was charged with one count of Class A Misdemeanor Battery, a crime carrying a sentence of up to one (1) year imprisonment and a $5,000 fine;
b. On the same day, Plaintiff Wilson was assigned an attorney from the Allen County Public Defender’s Office;
c. On July 21, 2015, Plaintiff Wilson had a court hearing on the charge, but: 13

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-PPS-SLC document 1 filed 12/31/15 page 14 of 18
i. Plaintiff Wilson’s attorney had no contact with him prior to the hearing; ii. Plaintiff Wilson’s attorney had no contact with him during the hearing; iii. Plaintiff Wilson’s attorney contacted him only after the hearing when,
because Plaintiff Wilson’s attorney had not contacted or spoken for him, the court nearly issued a warrant for his arrest for failure to appear at the hearing; and iv. When Plaintiff Wilson at their next brief meeting on July 28, 2015, he requested a copy of the probable cause affidavit in his case to be informed of the charge against him, Plaintiff Wilson’s attorney refused to provide him a copy and told him that, if he chose, he could obtain such a copy from the court. d. Plaintiff Wilson’s attorney to date has filed no motions in his case other than requests for continuance; e. Plaintiff Wilson’s attorney has never met with Plaintiff Wilson aside from brief encounters inside a courthouse; and f. Despite Plaintiff Wilson’s requests, his attorney has failed to meaningfully investigate the charge against him, advise him on his rights, and provide him adequate counsel. F. Plaintiff Faces a Continuing Risk his Constitutional Rights Will be Violated 46. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, individually named and class member Plaintiff has suffered or is at imminent and serious risk of suffering harm because: a. Defendants have persisted in a wrongful course of conduct over many years;
14

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-PPS-SLC document 1 filed 12/31/15 page 15 of 18
b. Defendants have persisted in a wrongful course of conduct even though they had actual knowledge indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes were being deprived of their constitutional rights; and
c. Defendants have failed to take proper, if any, action to correct the systematic failures of their public defense system.
47. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, including the policies, practices, and procedures for indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes in Allen County courts, individually named and class member Plaintiff has suffered or is in imminent and serious risk of suffering harm. VI. CAUSES OF ACTION – COUNT ONE Violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
48. Acting under color of law, Defendants have violated and caused violations of Plaintiff’s rights to the assistance of counsel pursuant to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
49. Unless enjoined by the Court, Defendants will continue to violate and cause the violation of the constitutional rights of the Class Plaintiff and the Class Members. VII. CAUSES OF ACTION – COUNT TWO Violation of Section 13(a) of Article 1 of the Indiana State Constitution
50. Acting under color of law, Defendants have violated and caused violations of Plaintiff’s rights as accused parties pursuant to Section 13(a) of Article 1 of the Indiana State Constitution.
51. Unless enjoined by the Court, Defendants will continue to violate and cause the violation
15

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-PPS-SLC document 1 filed 12/31/15 page 16 of 18 of the constitutional rights of the Class Plaintiff and the Class Members. VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court:
A. Certify the class as defined above; B. Declare that Defendants are depriving Class Plaintiff and Class Members of their rights
to assistance of counsel pursuant to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 13(a) of Article 1 of the Indiana State Constitution; C. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Defendants from violating the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 13(a) of Article 1 of the Indiana State Constitution in the provision of public defense services to indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes; D. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from making expenditures of funds on indigent defense services likely to result in violations of the constitutional rights of indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes; E. Award Plaintiff’s costs and attorneys’ fees; and F. Grant all other just and proper relief.
16

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-PPS-SLC document 1 filed 12/31/15 page 17 of 18 JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a jury trial pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
17

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-PPS-SLC document 1 filed 12/31/15 page 18 of 18
Respectfully, CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES

/s/ David W. Frank

Christopher C. Myers, #10043-02

Ilene M. Smith, #22818-02

David W. Frank, #31615-02

809 South Calhoun Street, Suite 400

Fort Wayne, IN 46802-2307

Telephone: (260) 424-0600

Facsimile: (260) 424-0712

E-mail:

dfrank@myers-law.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

DF

18

 
 USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 45 filed 08/19/16 page 1 of 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION

CALVIN WILSON, DAVID BLUME, and )

ASIA MARSHALL, individually and

)

on behalf of all others similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

ALLEN COUNTY COUNCIL,

)

ALLEN COUNTY BOARD OF

)

COMMISSIONERS, and ALLEN COUNTY)

PUBLIC DEFENDER BOARD,

)

)

Defendants.

)

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00402-PPS-SLC

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, Calvin Wilson, David Blume, and Asia Marshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, allege Defendants Allen County Council, Allen County Board of Commissioners, and Allen County Public Defender Board have subjected them to constructive denial of counsel and as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 13(a)
of Article 1 of the Indiana State Constitution guarantee indigent defendants charged with crimes the right to effective assistance of counsel. The right is fundamental and essential to a fair trial. See Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344 (1963);1 Argersinger v.

1 “Governments, both state and federal, quite properly spend vast sums of money to establish machinery to try defendants accused of crime. Lawyers to prosecute are everywhere deemed essential to protect the public’s interest in an orderly society. Similarly, there are few defendants charged with crime, few indeed, who fail to hire the best lawyers they can get to prepare and present their defenses. That government hires lawyers to prosecute and defendants who have the money hire lawyers to defend are the strongest indications of the widespread belief that lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries.”

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 45 filed 08/19/16 page 2 of 21
Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972); Winn v. State, 232 Ind. 70, 111 N.E.2d 653 (Ind. 1953). 2. The right of an indigent defendant to effective assistance of counsel has been long
recognized in the State of Indiana. See Webb v. Baird, 6 Ind. 13, 18 (Ind. 1854).2 3. Defendants, who operate the public defense system of Allen County, Indiana, have a duty
to ensure individuals charged with crimes, including misdemeanor crimes, are provided effective assistance of counsel. 4. However, Defendants for years in Allen County have operated a constitutionally, structurally, and systemically deficient public defender system for indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes. Systemic failures are numerous and include, in particular, excessive attorney caseloads. These failures have led to the denial of and impossibility of effective assistance of counsel and resulted in the constructive denial of counsel to misdemeanor defendants who are clients of the Allen County Public Defender’s Office. 5. Despite knowing of the deficiencies of their public defense system for at least ten (10) years,3 including excessive attorney caseloads, Defendants have failed to take reasonable steps to protect the constitutional rights of those affected. 6. As a result, indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes in Allen County have suffered and continue to suffer harm as a result of Defendants’ violations of their constitutional rights and constructive denial of the right to counsel.
2 “It is not to be thought of in a civilized community . . . that any citizen put in jeopardy of life or liberty should be debarred of counsel because he is too poor to employ such aid. No court could be expected to respect itself to sit and hear such a trial.” 3 Fred McKissack, Maximum Caseload: Misdemeanor Public Defenders Must Scramble, THE FORT WAYNE JOURNAL GAZETTE (April 3, 2005).
2

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 45 filed 08/19/16 page 3 of 21
7. Therefore, Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit for injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent further constitutional violations and to protect the constitutional rights of all indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes in the courts of Allen County. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This suit is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation of rights secured by the United States Constitution and the Indiana State Constitution.
9. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a). 10. This Court has the authority to enter declaratory judgment and to provide preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 11. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b). Defendants have offices within the district and the events and omissions that have given rise to and continue to give rise to Plaintiffs’ injuries occurred and continue to occur within this district.
III. PARTIES 12. Class Plaintiffs Calvin Wilson (“Wilson”), David Blume (“Blume”), and Asia Marshall
(“Marshall”) are Allen County, Indiana residents and indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes in Allen County as of the filing of the original Complaint in this action. As of the filing of the original Complaint in this action, Class Plaintiffs have been assigned attorneys from the Allen County Public Defender’s Office and face incarceration and the loss of thousands of dollars should they be convicted or plead guilty. In their cases,4 Class Plaintiffs’ assigned attorneys:
4 State of Indiana v. Calvin L Wilson, Case No. 02D05-1507-CM-002566 (Allen Co., Ind. Super. Ct. filed July 6, 2015); State of Indiana v. David R Blume, Case No. 02D04-1511-CM-004570 (Allen Co., Ind. Super. Ct. filed
3

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 45 filed 08/19/16 page 4 of 21
a. Have caseloads consisting of hundreds of additional misdemeanor cases; b. Have not meaningfully conducted any legal research into Class Plaintiffs’ cases; c. Have not meaningfully investigated Class Plaintiffs’ charges; d. Have not filed any substantive motions in the cases; e. Have not held one (1) confidential in-person meeting with Class Plaintiffs outside
a courthouse; and f. Have devoted less than one (1) hour in whole to the defense of each of Class
Plaintiffs’ cases. 13. Defendant Allen County Council is the elected body of Allen County that sets budgets,
appropriates funds, and makes final financial decisions for Allen County and its agencies. These agencies include the Allen County Public Defender’s Office. Defendant Allen County Council, along with Allen County Board of Commissioners, is responsible for approving staffing levels at the Allen County Public Defender’s Office.
a. Defendant Allen County Council is the sole agency legally responsible for final approval of funding the misdemeanor division of the Allen County Public Defender’s Office.
14. Defendant Allen County Board of Commissioners is the elected body of Allen County that serves as the county’s executive and legislative branches, makes and passes laws, sets employee polices, and signs service contracts for county agencies. These agencies include the Allen County Public Defender’s Office.
October 23, 2015); State of Indiana v. Asia Marshall, Case No. 02D06-1501-CM-000132 004570 (Allen Co., Ind. Super. Ct. filed Jan. 12, 2015).
4

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 45 filed 08/19/16 page 5 of 21
a. Defendant Allen County Board of Commissioners is the sole agency with legal authority to terminate members of the Allen County Public Defender Board.
15. Defendant Allen County Public Defender Board is the appointed body of Allen County that supervises and manages the county’s public defense system, primarily through the Allen County Public Defender’s Office. IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
16. Class Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Federal Civil Rule of procedure 23(a) and (b)(2) on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated (collectively, “Class Members”) as members of the following proposed Class: All individuals who have or will have misdemeanor criminal cases pending in the courts of Allen County, Indiana, who have or will have an attorney assigned to them due to indigency and have not been convicted or entered into a plea agreement.
17. The Class is so numerous that individual joinder of all Class Members is impracticable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). At any point in time, thousands of individuals have misdemeanor criminal cases pending in Allen County courts, at least hundreds of which are indigent and rely on an appointed attorney due to indigency.
18. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). The questions of law and fact common to all Class Members include but are not limited to: a. Whether Defendants have a duty to provide indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes in Allen County effective assistance of counsel; b. Whether Defendants have breached their duties; and c. Whether Class Plaintiffs and Members are being subject to constructive denial of the right to counsel. 5

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 45 filed 08/19/16 page 6 of 21
19. Class Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). 20. Class Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a)(4). There are no conflicts between the Class Plaintiffs and other putative Class Members. Class Plaintiffs will vigorously prosecute this action on behalf of the Class. Class Plaintiff is represented by competent counsel, Christopher C. Myers & Associates, who will vigorously prosecute the case on behalf of the Class. 21. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that are generally applicable to the entire Class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). 22. The claims asserted in this Complaint are capable of repetition while evading review. 23. There is continuing and substantial public interest in these matters.5
V. FACTS A. Defendants Have a Duty to Provide Effective Assistance of Counsel for Indigent Individuals Charged with Misdemeanor Crimes in Allen County 24. Defendants have a constitutional duty to provide indigent individuals charged with misdemeanors crimes in Allen County effective assistance of counsel. 25. To ensure effective assistance of counsel for indigent individuals in Indiana, state statute provides that counties generally must establish systems for the provision of public defense at the trial court level. Ind. Code Ann. §§ 33-40-7-1 et seq. 26. Defendant Allen County has chosen to provide for indigent criminal representation
5 Wilson v. State, 222 Ind. 63, 51 N.E.2d 848, 854-55 (Ind. 1943) (“This court has consistently held that, under the Constitution of Indiana, there can be no valid judgment against a defendant in a criminal case unless he has been offered, and, if so desired, provided with, adequate counsel . . . . The spirit of these constitutional provisions requires that an accused must have something more than a perfunctory representation . . . . Whether he is paid by the county or the accused, whether he is paid much or little, or nothing at all, the attorney’s obligation to his client is the same.” (citations and quotations omitted)).
6

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 45 filed 08/19/16 page 7 of 21
primarily through the Allen County Public Defender’s Office. This office is supervised and managed by Defendant Allen County Public Defender Board. Id.; Allen County, Ind. Code § 1-17-1 et seq. 27. By statute, the Allen County Public Defender’s Office must have staff necessary to operate the services of a public defender. Ind. Code Ann. § 33-40-7-7(2). Staffing levels are to be recommended by Defendant Allen County Public Defender Board and approved by Defendants Allen County Council and Allen County Board of Commissioners. Id. 28. Defendant Allen County Board of Commissioners established Defendant Allen County Public Defender Board by ordinance in 2003 to provide for the legal representation as required by law of indigent individuals charged with crimes in the county. Allen County, Ind. Code § 1-17-1. The duties of the Allen County Public Defender Board include preparing a comprehensive plan for indigent defense services, establishing policy and procedures for the provision of such services, monitoring the expenditures of the Allen County Public Defender’s Office, and recommending an annual operating budget to Defendant Allen County Council. Id. at 1-17-3, 4. 29. By state statute and county ordinance, Defendant Allen County Public Defender Board adopted Allen County’s Comprehensive Plan for Indigent Defense Services in 2003 to establish how the county would operate its public defense system. The Comprehensive Plan is attached and incorporated into this complaint as Exhibit A. 30. Allen County’s Comprehensive Plan for Indigent Defense Services provides that:
a. The Allen County Public Defender’s Office will be the “primary method of providing criminal defense services in Allen County.” Id. at 1.
7

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 45 filed 08/19/16 page 8 of 21
b. The Allen County Public Defender’s Office will comply with legal representation standards established by the state. Id. These standards, known as the Indiana Public Defender Commissions Standards for Indigent Defense Services, are attached and incorporated into this complaint as Exhibit B.
c. Attorneys for the Allen County Public Defender’s Office will not carry excessive caseloads that “interfere with the rendering of quality representation or lead to the breach of professional obligations.” Exhibit A at 6.
d. Attorneys for the Allen County Public Defender’s Office handling misdemeanor cases on a part-time basis will generally not carry more than 150 cases within a twelve-month period. Id. This caseload limit mirrors state standards. Ex. B at 14-16.
e. Attorneys for the Allen County Public Defender’s Office will notify the managing attorney of their office, the County Public Defender, if their caseloads become excessive. Ex. A at 6.
f. The County Public Defender will notify county judges “and refuse to accept the appointment of additional cases” when attorney caseloads become excessive. Id. at 6-7.6
B. Defendants’ are Systemically Failing to Provide Effective Assistance of Counsel to Indigent Individuals Charged with Misdemeanor Crimes in Allen County and Subjecting These Individuals to Constructive Denial of Counsel
6 The limitation on caseload sizes is critical to the operation of an effective county public defender office. According to the Indiana Public Defender Commission, “Not even the most able and industrious lawyers can provide quality representation when their workloads are unmanageable. Excessive caseloads, moreover, lead to attorney frustration, disillusionment by clients, and undermine the integrity of the adversary system of criminal justice.” Ex. B at 17.
8

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 45 filed 08/19/16 page 9 of 21
31. Defendants – under the U.S. and Indiana constitutions, Indiana statute, local ordinance, state standards, and their own comprehensive plan of operation – are systemically failing to provide effective assistance of counsel to indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes in Allen County. i. Defendants fail to properly staff and fund misdemeanor cases
32. Approximately 5,800 criminal misdemeanor cases are filed in Allen County courts annually, according to Indiana Division of State Court Administration. Of those, about one-third to one-quarter are assigned to attorneys with the Allen County Public Defender’s Office. See Exhibit C.7
33. Defendants, however, fail to properly staff and fund public defense for misdemeanor clients. Among other things: a. The Public Defender’s Office employs no full-time attorneys to represent indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes. Id. b. The Public Defender’s Office devotes a very small amount of its expenditures to counsel for misdemeanor criminal clients. The amount expended on salaries for misdemeanor attorneys ranges from between 1 and 3 percent of the office’s total spending. Id. c. The Public Defender’s Office contracts with only three part-time attorneys, and at times a fourth, for the more than 1,500 misdemeanor criminal cases it is assigned
7 This exhibit collects Allen County’s 2010 to 2014 end-of-the-year reports to the Indiana Public Defender Commission, which include indigent defense expenditures and caseloads. The purpose of these reports is to request reimbursement from the state for legal expenses. Indiana counties cannot currently request state reimbursement for misdemeanor cases. In each and every one of these reports, Allen County acknowledges that its misdemeanor attorneys are carrying excessive caseloads. In none of these reports does Allen County propose to redress excessive caseloads or request any state assistance, financial or otherwise, for excessive caseloads.
9

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 45 filed 08/19/16 page 10 of 21
every year. Id. d. Part-time misdemeanor public defense attorneys earn between $8,000 and $24,000
annually, despite each handling hundreds of public defense cases and hundreds of other cases in their private practices. Id. ii. Defendants’ misdemeanor attorney caseloads are grossly excessive 34. Attorneys with the Allen County Public Defender’s Office assigned to misdemeanor cases carry caseloads that are so excessive as to render effective assistance of counsel impossible and to constructively deny Class Plaintiffs and Members assistance of counsel. Among other things: a. Part-time misdemeanor attorneys carry caseloads that are double, triple, or even quadruple the maximum 150 cases allowed by the standards of the Indiana Public Defender Commission and Defendants’ own Comprehensive Plan for Indigent Defenses Services. See Ex. A, B, and C. b. In 2014, the average part-time misdemeanor attorney’s caseload ranged between 343 and 560 cases, which is representative of the years surveyed from 2010 to 2014. Ex. C. In 2010 and again 2011, at least one attorney for the given year represented over 600 indigent misdemeanor criminal cases. Id. c. Additionally, each of Defendants’ part-time misdemeanor attorneys maintain active private law practices, greatly expanding the number of clients they represent overall. d. To be sure, between January 1, 2013 and August 1, 2015, Defendants’ four active part-time misdemeanor attorneys appeared on more than 6,250 cases between their
10

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 45 filed 08/19/16 page 11 of 21
public defense work and private practice clients. One attorney alone appeared on more than 1,950 cases. All attorneys each appeared at least 1,100 cases. A spreadsheet of these cases is attached as Exhibit D and incorporated into this Complaint. iii. Defendants fail to provide indigent misdemeanor clients with adequate counsel and staff services 35. Defendants’ lack of investment in the public defense of misdemeanor clients is reflected in the few legal services offered them. Among other things: a. Attorneys generally do not devote sufficient time to prepare and legally advise clients; b. Attorneys generally do not devote sufficient time to analyze the facts or law pertinent to clients’ charges; c. Attorneys rarely invest more than one (1) hour of time in each of their cases; d. Attorneys rarely file motions in cases, except to request continuances of time; e. Attorneys rarely meet with clients except briefly and immediately prior to hearings; f. Attorneys rarely meet with clients in a confidential setting outside a courthouse; g. Attorneys rarely meet with clients while clients are in custody; h. Attorneys rarely succeed, or even seek, to have all charges dismissed in a case; i. Attorneys rarely take cases to trial, and, when they do, are not adequately prepared; j. Attorneys rarely, if ever, sufficiently investigate charges made against their clients; and k. The bulk of attorneys’ representation generally consists of a brief attorney-client meeting inside a courthouse to recommend that the client accept the plea agreement
11

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 45 filed 08/19/16 page 12 of 21
offered by a prosecutor. 36. Further:
a. Attorneys have never, even though required by the county’s Comprehensive Plan for Indigent Services, notified the County Public Defender that their caseloads have become excessive; and
b. The County Public Defender, though having actual knowledge of excessive caseloads, has never notified county judges of excessive caseloads nor refused to accept the appointment of additional cases based upon excessive caseloads as required by the county’s Comprehensive Plan for Indigent Services.
37. Additionally, Defendants maintain few support personnel to assist with legal services for clients charged with misdemeanor crimes. Among other things: a. Defendants’ Public Defender’s Office self-identifies as an office with “inadequate support staff,” see Ex. C; b. Defendants’ employ zero paralegals in the Public Defender’s Office for all of its more than thirty attorneys, including misdemeanor attorneys; c. Defendants’ employ one (1) secretary in the Public Defender’s Office for all of its more than thirty attorneys, including misdemeanor attorneys; and d. Though Defendants’ employ seven (7) investigators in the Public Defender’s Office, they generally devote no to little time to investigating the charges against misdemeanor clients. C. Defendants’ Know They are Constructively Denying Assistance of Counsel to Indigent Misdemeanor Clients but have not Taken Corrective Action
38. Defendants know they have provided and continue to provide indigent individuals charged 12

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 45 filed 08/19/16 page 13 of 21
with misdemeanor crimes ineffective assistance of counsel. 39. However, Defendants have not sought to increase funding for misdemeanor public defense
or sought to meaningfully supervise or correct the system despite their duties to do so. Among other things:
a. Defendant Allen County Council has not allocated necessary funds to provide effective assistance of counsel to indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes;
b. Defendant Allen County Board of Commissioners has not passed laws to ensure that the county provides constitutionally effective assistance of counsel to indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes nor ever exercised legal authority over the Public Defender Board to bring the services of the Public Defender’s Office into legal compliance; and
c. Defendant Allen County Public Defender Board has not adequately supervised the Allen County Defender’s Office and recommended annual budgets as to provide effective assistance of counsel to misdemeanor clients.
40. Defendants, as a whole, have taken little or no action to properly fund, regulate, or manage public defense in Allen County is such a way to provide effective assistance of counsel to indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes, even though they are regularly notified of systematic failures, including excessive attorney caseloads. D. Defendants’ Constructive Denial of Counsel is Harming Class Members
41. Defendants have breached their constitutional duties to provide effective public defense to Class Members. This has deprived Class Members of, among other things:
13

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 45 filed 08/19/16 page 14 of 21
a. Adequate advise, consultation, and communication with attorneys; b. The ability to make informed decisions about their legal rights; c. Meaningful opportunity to present defenses against charges; d. Proper attorney assistance prior to waiving of rights; and e. Proper, prompt, and accurate information regarding plea alternatives, jail
alternatives, and consequences of plea agreements and criminal sentences.
E. Defendants’ Constructive Denial of Counsel is Harming Class Plaintiffs 42. Because Defendants have breached their constitutional duties by establishing and
perpetuating a public defense system that deprives indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes of the effective assistance of counsel, Class Plaintiffs are suffering harm. 43. At the time of the filing of the original Complaint in this action, Class Plaintiff Wilson is suffering harm and his constitutional rights are being violated do to the acts and omissions of Defendants.8 Among other things:
a. On July 6, 2015, Plaintiff Wilson was charged with one count of Class A Misdemeanor Battery, a crime carrying a sentence of up to one (1) year imprisonment and a $5,000 fine;
8 The charges of Plaintiffs Wilson and Blume have been dismissed since the time of the original filing of this Complaint on December 31, 2015 but his original allegations should related back to the original date of filing and so allow them to remain proper Plaintiffs in this action. See Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 111 n. 11 (1975) (action not moot where it is uncertain whether class representative would be detained long enough for the judge to rule on class certification); see also Susman v. Lincoln American Corporation, 587 F.2d 866, 870 (7th Cir. 1978) (“There may be cases in which the controversy involving the named plaintiffs is such that it becomes moot as to them before the district court can reasonably be expected to rule on a certification motion. In such instances, whether the certification can be said to ‘relate back’ to the filing of the complaint may depend upon the circumstances of the particular case and especially the reality of the claim that otherwise the issue would evade review.” (quoting Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 402 n. 11)).
14

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 45 filed 08/19/16 page 15 of 21
b. On the same day, Plaintiff Wilson was assigned an attorney from the Allen County Public Defender’s Office;
c. On July 21, 2015, Plaintiff Wilson had a court hearing on the charge, but: i. Plaintiff Wilson’s attorney had no contact with him prior to the hearing; ii. Plaintiff Wilson’s attorney had no contact with him during the hearing;
iii. Plaintiff Wilson’s attorney contacted him only after the hearing when, because Plaintiff Wilson’s attorney had not contacted or spoken for him, the court nearly issued a warrant for his arrest for failure to appear at the hearing; and
iv. When Plaintiff Wilson at their next brief meeting on July 28, 2015, he requested a copy of the probable cause affidavit in his case to be informed of the charge against him, Plaintiff Wilson’s attorney refused to provide him a copy and told him that, if he chose, he could obtain such a copy from the court.
d. Plaintiff Wilson’s attorney to date has filed no motions in his case other than requests for continuance;
e. Plaintiff Wilson’s attorney has never met with Plaintiff Wilson aside from brief encounters inside a courthouse; and
f. Despite Plaintiff Wilson’s requests, his attorney has failed to meaningfully investigate the charge against him, advise him on his rights, and provide him adequate counsel.
44. Class Plaintiff Blume is suffering harm and his constitutional rights are being violated due
15

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 45 filed 08/19/16 page 16 of 21
to the acts and omissions of Defendants. Among other things: a. On October 23, 2015, Plaintiff Blume was charged with one count of Class A Misdemeanor Domestic Battery, a crime carrying a sentence of up to one (1) year imprisonment and a $5,000 fine; b. However, Plaintiff Blume did not meet with his public defender for the first time until January 2016; c. On January 19, 2016, Plaintiff Blume for the first time had the opportunity to discuss his case with his attorney, but: i. This conversation was held within a courthouse; and ii. This conversation was held without his public defender having meaningfully investigated the facts or law concerning Plaintiff Blume’s case. d. Nevertheless, Plaintiff Blume’s attorney instructed him to accept an agreement to plead guilty to his charge. Plaintiff Blume notified his attorney he was innocent of the charge and refused his attorney’s instructions; e. Since that time, Plaintiff Blume’s attorney to date has filed no motions in his case other than requests for continuance; f. Plaintiff Blume’s attorney has never met with Plaintiff Blume aside from brief encounters inside a courthouse; and g. Despite Plaintiff Blume’s requests, his attorney has failed to meaningfully investigate the charge against him, advise him on his rights, and provide him adequate counsel.
16

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 45 filed 08/19/16 page 17 of 21
45. Class Plaintiff Marshall is suffering harm and his constitutional rights are being violated due to the acts and omissions of Defendants. Among other things: a. On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Marshall was charged with one count of Class A Misdemeanor Domestic Battery, a crime carrying a sentence of up to one (1) year imprisonment and a $5,000 fine, and one count of Class B Disorderly Conduct; b. On March 9, 2016, Plaintiff Marshall, a single mother, was appointed a public defender after running out of funds for private counsel; c. Plaintiff Marshall is innocent of the charges against her and refused to plea guilty to either charge through any agreement; d. As a result, on June 29, 2016, a jury trial was held in her case; e. However, at the jury trial held after Plaintiff Marshall refused to accept any plea agreement, Plaintiff Marshall was constructively denied counsel due to her public defender’s excessive caseload and Defendants’ wrongdoings; f. At her trial, her public defender: i. Called no witnesses; ii. Introduced no evidence; iii. Refused to permit her to testify despite her demand to do so; and iv. Refused to cross-examine any but one (1) of the prosecution’s witnesses; g. Because of the constructive denial of counsel, Plaintiff Marshall was convicted of both charges; h. At her sentencing, her attorney offered no argument for a lenient sentence; i. At her sentencing, Plaintiff Marshall was forced herself without assistance of her
17

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 45 filed 08/19/16 page 18 of 21
attorney to request an appeal; j. After her sentencing, Plaintiff Marshall was incarcerated; k. Her case is now on appeal where, because she is unable to afford private counsel,
she is represented by an attorney with the Allen County Public Defender’s Office. F. Plaintiffs Face a Continuing Risk their Constitutional Rights Will be Violated 46. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, individually named and class member Plaintiffs have suffered or is at imminent and serious risk of suffering harm because:
a. Defendants have persisted in a wrongful course of conduct over many years; b. Defendants have persisted in a wrongful course of conduct even though they had
actual knowledge indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes were being deprived of their constitutional rights; and c. Defendants have failed to take proper, if any, action to correct the systematic failures of their public defense system. 47. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, including the policies, practices, and procedures for indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes in Allen County courts, individually named and class member Plaintiffs have suffered or is in imminent and serious risk of suffering harm. 48. This harm includes not only the risk of fine and imprisonment, but collateral consequences of a criminal conviction.9
9 Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 47-48 (1972) (Powell, J., concurring) (“The consequences of a misdemeanor conviction, whether they be a brief period served under the sometimes deplorable conditions found in local jails or the effect of a criminal record on employability, are frequently of sufficient magnitude not to be casually dismissed by the label ‘petty.’ Serious consequences also may result from convictions not punishable by imprisonment. Stigma may attach to a drunken driving conviction or a hit-and-run escapade. Losing one’s driver’s license is more serious for some individuals than a brief stay in jail.”).
18

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 45 filed 08/19/16 page 19 of 21
49. These consequences of conviction may include loss of employment, public benefits, housing, immigration status, and driving privileges.
50. Misdemeanor attorneys of the Allen County Public Defender’s Office are ethically bound to advise indigent defendants of these consequences when presenting a plea agreement to their clients, though regularly fail to do so.10
51. Moreover, misdemeanor attorneys of the Allen County Public Defender’s Office must represent their indigent clients under the same ethical standards under which they represent their private clients, though regularly fail to do so.11 VI. CAUSES OF ACTION – COUNT ONE
Violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution 52. Acting under color of law, Defendants’ actions have caused and are causing systematic and
constructive violations of Plaintiffs’ rights to the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 53. Unless enjoined by the Court, Defendants will continue to violate and cause the violation of the constitutional rights of Class Plaintiffs and Class Members.
VII. CAUSES OF ACTION – COUNT TWO Violation of Section 13(a) of Article 1 of the Indiana State Constitution 54. Acting under color of law, Defendants’ actions have caused and are causing systematic and constructive violations of Plaintiffs’ rights to the effective assistance of counsel under the
10 See, e.g., ABA STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE: PLEAS OF GUILTY 14-3.2(f ) (3d ed. 1997) (“to the extent possible, [to] determine and advise the defendant, sufficiently in advance of the entry of any plea, as to the possible collateral consequences that might ensue from the entry of the contemplated plea”). 11 ABA Comm. on Ethics and Prof’l Responsibility, Formal Op. 06-441 (2006), available at http://www.abanet.org/cpr/06_441.pdf.
19

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 45 filed 08/19/16 page 20 of 21
Section 13(a) of Article 1 of the Indiana State Constitution. 55. Unless enjoined by the Court, Defendants will continue to violate and cause the violation
of the constitutional rights of Class Plaintiffs and Class Members. VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court: A. Certify the class as defined above; B. Declare that Defendants are subjecting Class Plaintiffs and Class Members to the
constructive denial of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 13(a) of Article 1 of the Indiana State Constitution; C. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Defendants from violating the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 13(a) of Article 1 of the Indiana State Constitution in the provision of public defense services to indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes; D. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from making expenditures of funds on indigent defense services likely to result in violations of the constitutional rights of indigent individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes; E. Award Plaintiffs’ costs and attorney fees; and F. Grant all other just and proper relief.
20

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 45 filed 08/19/16 page 21 of 21
Respectfully, CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES
/s/ David W. Frank Christopher C. Myers, #10043-02 David W. Frank, #31615-02 809 South Calhoun Street, Suite 400 Fort Wayne, IN 46802-2307 Telephone: (260) 424-0600 Facsimile: (260) 424-0712 E-mail: dfrank@myers-law.com Counsel for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on the date stamped above a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served electronically via CM/ECF to counsel of record. s/David W. Frank David W. Frank
DF/ S:\Wilson - Class Action - DF\Pleadings\Third Amended Complaint.docx
21

 
 USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 76 filed 08/14/17 page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

CALVIN WILSON, DAVID BLUME, and )

ASIA MARSHALL, individually and on )

behalf of all other similarly situated persons, )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

ALLEN COUNTY COUNCIL, ALLEN )

ALLEN COUNTY BOARD OF

)

COMMISSIONERS, and ALLEN

)

COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER BOARD, )

)

Defendants.

)

CAUSE NO.: 1:15-CV-402-TLS

OPINION AND ORDER

The Plaintiffs, Calvin Wilson, David Blume, and Asia Marshall, on behalf of themselves

and others similarly situated, have brought this class action against Defendants, the Allen County

Council, the Allen County Board of Commissioners, and the Allen County Public Defender

Board, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Plaintiffs

allege that the Defendants fail to provide effective assistance of counsel to indigent defendants

charged with committing misdemeanor crimes in the courts of Allen County, Indiana in violation

of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 13(a) of

Article 1 of the Indiana State Constitution. On August 30, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed their First

Amended Motion for Class Certification [ECF No. 48]. On February 6, 2017, the Defendants

filed their Objection [ECF No. 57] to the Plaintiffs’ Motion. On February 10, 2017, the Plaintiffs

filed their Reply [ECF No. 58]. Discovery on this case is ongoing, with an expected conclusion

date of September 13, 2017. (See June 20, 2017 Order, ECF No. 75).

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 76 filed 08/14/17 page 2 of 3
Upon review of the parties’ briefing, the Court notes that the Defendants’ Objection is entirely premised on the basis of the Named Plaintiffs’ lack of Article III standing. (See Defs’ Obj., ECF No. 57.) Moreover, the Defendants state that they intend to file a Motion to Dismiss on the same point:
The Named Plaintiffs lack of Article III standing to continue pursuing their individual claims in this cause of action also means that this cause of action has become moot and should be dismissed as to the Named Plaintiffs. In light of this reality, the Defendants do intend to file a motion to dismiss this cause of action in its entirety based on the fact that the Named Plaintiffs’ claims are now moot and, therefore, this Court no longer has jurisdiction over this cause of action. (Defs’ Obj. 10 n.2 (citations omitted), ECF No. 57.) Accordingly, this Court is called upon to address the Plaintiffs’ standing to bring the instant action. The issue of standing presents “the threshold question in every federal case . . . .” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1974). The Court is “obligated to address . . . standing because it is a predicate to our subject matter jurisdiction here.” Lindley v. Sullivan, 889 F.2d 124, 128 n.3 (7th Cir. 1989). “The Court simply cannot close its eyes to evidence that calls into question its jurisdiction over a case.” Illinois Sporting Goods Ass’n v. Cty. of Cook, 884 F. Supp. 275, 282 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Because the Defendants indicate that they will file a Motion to Dismiss on the issue of standing, the Court terms, with leave to refile, the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Motion for Class Action. The Court grants the Defendants until September 13, 2017, to file a motion to dismiss. Upon receipt of the parties’ completed briefing on the motion, the Court will address the issues raised in the motion to dismiss, including standing.
2

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 76 filed 08/14/17 page 3 of 3 CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court DENIES, WITH LEAVE TO REFILE, the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Motion for Class Certification [ECF No. 48]. The Court GRANTS the Defendants until September 15, 2017, to file their Motion to Dismiss.
SO ORDERED on August 14, 2017. s/ Theresa L. Springmann CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3

 
 USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 133 filed 07/25/19 page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION

ASIA MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALLEN COUNTY COUNCIL, ALLEN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, and ALLEN COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER BOARD,
Defendants.

Case No.: 1:15-CV-402-TLS

OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement [ECF No. 104], associated documents [ECF Nos. 112 and 114], and Plaintiff Asia Marshall’s Petition for Relief [ECF No. 116] and associated briefing [ECF Nos. 119, 121, and 122].

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On December 31, 2015, Plaintiff Calvin Wilson commenced this suit by filing the first Complaint [ECF No. 1]. On August 19, 2016, Plaintiff Calvin Wilson, now joined by Asia Marshall and David Blume1, finalized the Complaint by filing the Third Amended Class Action Complaint [ECF No. 45]. The Third Amended Class Action Complaint alleges a class arising under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and seeks injunctive relief from alleged violations of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, arising from the Defendants’ failure to adequately provision public

1 David Blume was dismissed as a party on August 29, 2017 [ECF Nos. 77 and 78].

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 133 filed 07/25/19 page 2 of 8
defense services to misdemeanor cases. The Third Amended Class Action Complaint does not make any requests for relief in the form of money damages.
On August 14, 2017, the Court denied, with leave to refile, the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Motion for Class Certification [ECF No. 76]. On September 15, 2017, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint [ECF No. 82]. That Motion was never fully briefed; instead, on June 18, 2018, the Defendants filed an Unopposed Motion to Vacate the Deadline for their Reply Brief, representing that the parties had reached an agreement in principal to settle the action. See Defs.’ Unopposed Mot., ECF No. 99, ¶ 2. The Motion was granted [ECF No. 100]; and the Court terminated the pending Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 103].
On September 18, 2018, the Defendants filed the pending Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement [ECF No. 104]. Plaintiff Asia Marshall indicated she did not wish to continue to have Plaintiffs’ counsel, Christopher C. Myers & Associates, represent her; and the firm filed a Motion to Withdraw as Attorney [ECF Nos. 105–07]. The firm also filed two Reports regarding the settlement agreement [ECF Nos. 112 and 114]. The Court held a telephonic conference [ECF No. 115], at which point the Court granted the Motion to Withdraw and granted Plaintiff Asia Marshall additional time in which to either find new counsel or file a written document advising the Court as to why the Settlement Agreement should not be enforced. Plaintiff Asia Marshall subsequently filed her Petition for Relief [ECF No. 116]. The Petition for Relief, among other requests, asks that the Court deny the Defendants’ Motion to Enforce. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a response [ECF No. 119] as did the Defendants [ECF No. 121]. Plaintiff Asia Marshall filed a reply [ECF No. 122].
2

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 133 filed 07/25/19 page 3 of 8
FACTUAL BACKGROUND On May 23, 2018, counsel for the Defendant Allen County Council, attorney James Posey, called then-Plaintiffs’ counsel, attorney Christopher Myers, to discuss settlement of the lawsuit. See Defs.’ Mot. to Enforce Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 104, ¶ 2. During that discussion, the attorneys agreed that Defendants Allen County Council and Allen County Public Defender Board’s actions after the lawsuit satisfied the Plaintiffs’ request for prospective injunctive relief. Id. Given that fact, the Defendants offered a number of terms of settlement, which included among others: (1) payment to the then-Plaintiffs’ counsel of $90,000; (2) release by the Plaintiffs of all claims they had against any of the Defendants for “anything relating to the public defender services provided by the Allen County Public Defender’s Office” to the Plaintiffs; (3) dismissal of the lawsuit; and (4) execution of an agreement reflecting these terms by the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the Plaintiffs’ counsel. Id. at ¶¶ 2.a, 2.c, 2.f, and 2.h. At the end of the discussion, attorney Myers told attorney Posey that he would need to discuss the offer with his associate and that any settlement would have to allow Plaintiff Asia Marshall to retain the right to sue her former Public Defender, Ryan Lackey, for alleged malpractice. Later that day, attorney Myers called attorney Posey and told him that if the requisite carve-out regarding Public Defender Lackey were included, then the Plaintiffs and the Myers law firm would accept the settlement offer. Id. at ¶ 3. On June 15, 2018, attorney Posey called attorney Myers and told him that the Defendants agreed to the requisite carve-out. Id. at ¶ 4. Thus, in the Defendants’ view, the lawsuit was settled on June 15, 2018, and the Defendants sent an initial draft settlement agreement. Id. However, the negotiations continued.
3

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 133 filed 07/25/19 page 4 of 8
On June 19, 2018, attorney Myers emailed counsel for the Defendants asking for certain modifications: specifically, a second carve-out to allow Plaintiff Asia Marshall to sue her other former Public Defender, David Joley, for alleged malpractice. Id. at ¶ 6. The Defendants agreed to the new demand and sent a red-lined draft reflecting the modification. Id. at ¶ 7.
On July 18, 2018, attorney Posey called attorney Myers about finalizing the settlement agreement. Id. at ¶ 8. Attorney Myers told attorney Posey that Plaintiff Asia Marshall was not happy with the settlement because she was not receiving any money as part of the settlement and that he was not sure Plaintiff Asia Marshall would sign the settlement agreement. Id.
On August 2, 2018, attorney Myers sent attorney Posey an email asking for the final version so that Plaintiff Calvin Wilson could sign it. Id. at ¶ 9. The email also made clear that attorney Myers did not necessarily expect Plaintiff Asia Marshall to sign the agreement. Over the next week or so, further negotiations took place, and further additional language was added to the agreement at the request of Plaintiff Asia Marshall. Id. at ¶¶ 11–16.
On August 16, 2018, Defendant Allen County Council voted on, approved, and executed the settlement agreement with the further additional language; attorney Posey forwarded that executed version to the other parties to the lawsuit. Id. at ¶ 16. On August 17, 2018, the Defendant Allen County Board of Commissioners voted on, approved, and executed the settlement agreement. Id. at ¶ 17.
On August 28, 2018, attorney Myers left attorney Posey a voicemail message stating that Plaintiff Calvin Wilson had executed the settlement agreement and that Plaintiff Asia Marshall had a meeting on August 30, 2018, to do the same. Id. at ¶ 19. On August 30, 2018, attorney Myers left another voicemail for attorney Posey, informing him that Plaintiff Asia Marshall had refused to sign. Id. at ¶ 20. The two attorneys met later that day and discussed Plaintiff Asia
4

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 133 filed 07/25/19 page 5 of 8
Marshall’s refusal; during that meeting, attorney Myers passed on a demand for $300,000 made by Asia Marshall. Id. at ¶ 21.
ANALYSIS “A settlement agreement is essentially interpreted as a contract.” United States v. Rand Motors, 305 F.3d 770, 774 (7th Cir. 2002); Herrnreiter v. Chicago Hous. Auth., 281 F.3d 634, 636 (7th Cir. 2002). In this case, the issues regarding the formation, construction, and enforcement of the settlement agreement are governed by state contract law. Sims-Madison v. Inland Paperboard and Packaging, Inc., 379 F.3d 445, 448 (7th Cir. 2004). Under Indiana law, the elements of a binding contract include an offer, acceptance of the offer, consideration, and a meeting of the minds between the parties. See Bennett v. Broderick, 858 N.E.2d 1044, 1048 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). For an offer and an acceptance to constitute a contract, the acceptance must meet and correspond with the offer in every respect. See I.C.C. Protective Coatings, Inc. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 695 N.E.2d 1030, 1034 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). “An acceptance which varies the terms of the offer is considered a rejection and operates as a counteroffer, which may be then accepted by the original offeror.” Id. at 1035. Thus, a counteroffer terminates a previous offer or previous counteroffer. All parties must have a meeting of the minds on all essential terms in order for a contract to be binding. Bennett, 858 N.E.2d at 1048. The facts presented by the Defendants show that a contract was never formed, because Plaintiff Asia Marshall never agreed to the terms of the settlement. No party argues that Plaintiff Asia Marshall ever evinced agreement to the Defendants directly. Thus, any agreement from Plaintiff Asia Marshall would have had to come through her attorney. However, the facts also do
5

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 133 filed 07/25/19 page 6 of 8
not support that Plaintiff Asia Marshall granted her attorney the authority, either actual or apparent, to enter this settlement agreement on her behalf.
The Defendants, although not attorney Myers, cite attorney Myers’ assertion that he had “actual authority to resolve this case for the injunctive relief/declaratory relief obtained . . . and their attorney’s fees,” and that “only after doing so did the clients raise objections.” See Defs.’ Resp. to Pl. Asia Marshall’s “Petition for Relief,” ECF No. 121, ¶ 12 (citing Supp. Report to the Court by Plaintiff’s Counsel, ECF No. 114, ¶ 12). The Court, as the Defendants’ request, takes note of this assertion: However, it is not dispositive on the evidence presented. Aside from the bare statement that Plaintiff’s counsel had “actual authority,” no evidence demonstrates Plaintiff Asia Marshall granting that authority. Indeed, the Court reads the paragraph the Defendants reference as concerning only the nature of the suit and the fee agreement, rather than a separate, affirmative grant. Thus, it appears Plaintiff Asia Marshall did not grant actual authority to attorney Myers to accept the available offer on her behalf.
The Defendants also argue that attorney Myers had apparent authority; that is, that they reasonably believed attorney Myers had the authority to settle the lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiff Asia Marshall. See Defs.’ Resp. to Pl. Asia Marshall’s “Petition for Relief,” ECF No. 121, ¶ 13. To support their conclusion of apparent authority, the Defendants rely primarily on (i) attorney Myers’ status as counsel of record for Plaintiff Asia Marshall and (ii) attorney Myers’ request for the carve-out regarding Public Defender Lackey as evidence that attorney Myers was communicating with Plaintiff Asia Marshall.
An attorney may not settle a claim without the client’s consent. Bay v. Pulliam, 872 N.E.2d 666, 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Koval v. Simon Telelect, Inc., 693 N.E.2d 1299,
6

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 133 filed 07/25/19 page 7 of 8
1301 (Ind. 1998); Gravens v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 666 N.E.2d 964 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996)).2 When settlement occurs in an out-of-court proceeding, an Indiana attorney does not have implied or apparent authority simply because he has been retained. Koval, 693 N.E.2d at 1301. Therefore, the mere fact of attorney Myers’ status as Plaintiff Asia Marshall’s attorney is not enough evidence to support the Defendants’ claim that attorney Myers’ had apparent authority.
For an attorney to have apparent authority, a third person must reasonably believe the agent possesses authority due to some act by the principal. Scott v. Randle, 697 N.E.2d 60, 67 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (citing Pollas v. Hardware Wholesalers, Inc., 663 N.E.2d 1188, 1191 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996)). The existence of apparent authority must be communicated by the principal to the opposing party; communication by the agent does not create an apparent agency relationship. Koval, 693 N.E.2d at 1304. Other than the mere fact of attorney Myers’ retained status, the only support the Defendants cite for their conclusion of apparent authority are communications made by attorney Myers. But under Indiana law, these statements by attorney Myers are not enough to establish that he had the apparent authority to settle for Plaintiff Asia Marshall.
In fact, the Defendants had plenty of notice that attorney Myers did not have such authority. The Defendants describe the multiple rounds of edits to the settlement agreement, particularly to the key term of release of all claims, and the several times that attorney Myers expressed the difficulty he believed he would have in getting Plaintiff Asia Marshall to sign the document. Such difficulty should have alerted the Defendants to the problem with their
2 The Indiana Court of Appeals has held that an agreement into which an attorney enters without his client’s consent is enforceable against that client, see Red Arrow Ventures, Ltd. v. Miller, 692 N.E.2d 939 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), but not without consent or apparent or actual authority. To the extent Red Arrow could be interpreted otherwise, such a holding would have been overruled by Koval, which held explicitly that “the sole act of retaining an attorney does not give the attorney the implied or the apparent authority to settle or compromise a claim in an out of court proceeding.” Koval, 693 N.E.2d at 1301; accord Scott v. Randle, 697 N.E.2d 60, 68–69 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).
7

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00402-TLS-SLC document 133 filed 07/25/19 page 8 of 8 conclusion that attorney Myers had apparent authority to settle on behalf of Asia Marshall. See Oak Street Mortg., LLC v. Sheneman, Case No. 3:06-CV-491, 2010 WL 3070459, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 3, 2010).
CONCLUSION Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement [ECF No. 104] is DENIED. Plaintiff Asia Marshall’s Petition for Relief [ECF No. 116] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; to the extent it asks the Court to decline to enforce the settlement agreement, it is GRANTED; all other relief is DENIED. Finally, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint [ECF No. 82] was terminated only because the parties reported they had reached a settlement. Therefore, the Defendants are granted until August 26, 2019, to re-file their Motion to Dismiss. SO ORDERED on July 25, 2019.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8