Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 1 Filed 06/16/15 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED sia Q1çT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

?I5 JUN IbP

ANTHONY COOPER, et al. Plaintiffs,
V.
THE CITY OF DOTHAN, Defendant.,

IS9R.ADPS.IHRA!CCTKCETOtUCTLK
ti)ODLE D!SIR!CT
)

'

)

)

)

Case No. (Class Action)

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Introduction
This case is about the City of Dothan jailing some of its poorest people because they cannot pay a small amount of money. Anthony Cooper is a recent arrestee who is currently imprispned by the City because he cannot afford to pay the amount of money generically set by the "bail schedule" used by the City of Dothan. In th,City of Dothan, many people arrested for minor traffic Or misdemeanor offeries are released from custody almost immediately upon payment of money to the City. Those aTre.steeswho are too poor to purchase their release remain in jail because of their poverty for up to seven days before a first court appearance.
On-behalf Ofthemany other arrestees subjected. to-the Ci's.tmIawfuJ and ongOingpostarrest money-based detention scheme, the Plaintiff challenges in this action the use of fixed amounts of secured money bail that operates to detain only the most impoverished of minor misdemeanor a'estees. The City's policy has no place inmodern American law.
By and through his attorneys and on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff seeks in this civil action the- Vifldication of his fundamental rights i injunctive 'relief

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 1 Filed 06/16/15 Page 2 of 12

assuring that his rights and the rights of the other Class members will not continue to be violated,

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

Nature of the Action'

1. It is the policy and practice of the City of Dothan to refuse to release traffic and

misdemeanor arrestees from jail unless they pay a generically set "bond" amount. That amount

varies for each misdemeanor offense but generally ranges from $300-$500. Because this sum is

set by reference to the alleged offense of arrest, no individualized factors are considered, and

anyone who cannot afford to pay is held in jail for up to seven days before the City brings its

arrestees before the municipal court by video feed from the jail. City officers bar members of the

public from attending that court session.

2:. Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief.

Jurisdiction and Venue

3.

This is a civil rights action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.0 § 2201,

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

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1343. 4. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant. to 28 U.S.0 § 1391.

Paities

5 Plaintiff Anthony Cooper represents himself as an individual and a Class of similarly situated people all subject to the City's money-based post-arrest detention scheme.

6. Defendant City of Dothan is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of

the State of Alabama. The City operates the Dothan Police Department and the Dothan City Jail,

where Dothan arrestees are confined after arrest.

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

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 1 Filed 06/16/15 Page 3 of 12
Factual Background A. The Plaintiff's Arrest 7. Anthony Cooper is a 56-year-old man. 8. Mr. Cooper was arrested on Friday, June 12, 2015 by Dothan police officers for public intoxication. See Exhibit 1, Declaration of Anthony Cooper. 9. Mr. Cooper was taken to the Dothan City jail and informed by City employees that he would not be released unless he paid the standard $300 bond amount for public intoxication charges. 10. Mr. Cooper is indigent and suffers from significant mental health problems. He is illiterate and survives solely on Social Security benefits. See Id. He cannot afford to purchase his release from jail. 11. Mr. Cooper suffers from physical injuries, including a head wound and high blood pressure. He is currently not being given his medication by the City jail. 12. Mr. Cooper was told that, pursuant to City policy, he would not be brought to court until the City's weekly court session on Thursday, six days after his arrest. Pursuant to City policy, the earliest that Mr. Cooper Would be brought to court for a first appearance is Thursday, June 18, 2015. B. The City's Policies and Practices 13. The named Plaintiff would be released immediately by the City of Dothan if he or a family member paid the amount set by the City of Dothan. 14. The treatment of the named Plaintiff and other Class members is caused by and is representative of the City's post-arrest detention policies and practices.
3

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 1 Filed 06/16/15 Page 4 of 12
15. As a matter of policy and practice, when the City of Dothan Police Department makes-an arrest for a minor traffic or misdemeanor Offense, officers inform the arrestee at booking that the person will be released immediately if the person pays $300-$500 for each charge of arrest pursuant to an offense-based and pre-set informal "bail schedule."' The arrestee is told that she will remain in jail if she is not able to make that payment.
16. Because Dothan does not deviate from secured money bail, any arrestee too poor to pay the pre-set secured bail could spend as many as seven days in jail prior to a first court appearance.'
17. A court docket is developed weekly from the City jail records. The docket includes individuals who were jailed since the previous Thursday's court appearances. Impoverished persons arrested for a traffic or misdemeanor offense after the docket is developed on Thursday morning must languish in jail until the following Thursday when the next weekly (Thursday) court docket is called.
18. Unlike many other cities, the City of Dothan does not allow post-arrest release on recognizance or with an unsecured bond (in which a person would be released by promising to pay the scheduled amount if the person later does not appear). Instead, City officials require that the payment amount be made up front.
2 Becauseofthe common availability of commercial bail bonds, those that remain in the custody of the City of Dothan are typically those that cannot even afford to pay a.thfrd-party bonding agent. The amount charged by a bonding agent to pay a $500 cash bond is typically $504100, although such agents are free to refuse to pay for the release of an arrestee for any reason or for no reason. Thus, the availability of third-party agents, at least for those arretees who can afford $50 but not $500, is no guarantee. Mr. Cooper cannot afford such a bond.
Those arrestees unable to pay for their release are eventually visited, usually within 72 hours, by a Dothan, City magistrate. The purpose of that visit is not to conduct any hearing or to make any neutralprobable cause finding. As a matter of policy and practice, the magistrates do not conduct any indigency hearing and are not permitted to reduce or waive monetary bail to allow release on recognizance or to allow that bail be unsecured rather than secured Instead the magistrate merely informs the person of the charges, confirms the arrestee s monetary bail amount as determined by jail employees, and informs the person that the person's first appearance before ajudge will occur the following Thursday. The City of Dothan holds court once per week each Thursday.
4

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 1 Filed 06/16/15 Page 5 of 12
19. After arrest, jail employees inform arrestees of the secured bond amount based on their training and City policies. Many of Dothan's minor misdemeanor arrestees are thus released soon after arrest upon payment of the scheduled amount of cash. Some remain detained for varying lengths of time until they or their families are able to borrow sufficient amounts of money or arrange for third-party payment. Others, like the named Plaintiff, who are too poor even to find anyone to pay the money bond for them, are kept in jail for up to seven days before their first court appearance.
20. Each Thursday, there are commonly about ten (10) destitute defendants who were not able to pay enough money to secure their release. The City of Dothan forces these inmates to appear in the courtroom via video from jail.
21. The City of Dothan holds such proceedings in an empty "courtroom" that is closed to the public for all such video proceedings. The public is not allowed to enter the proceedings, which often include only the City prosecutor or magistrate, City judge, and the defendant on video. On occasion, an arrestee is represented by an attorney, who is allowed to be present.
22. Despite the First and Sixth Amendments' guarantee of open public court proceedings and binding precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States and the Eleventh Circuit requiring all such proceedings to be open to the public, it is often not possible, as a matter of policy and practice, for a member of the public to observe court proceedings involving inmates in the City of Dothan.
23. Because of Dothan's unprecedented and illegal courtroom cclolossuurree policies, it is difficult for the public to obtain accurate details concerning how many impoverished Dothan arrestees are unable to buy their release each week or the exact manner in which they are treated.
5

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 1 Filed 06/16/15 Page 6 of 12
Class Action Allegations 24. The named Plaintiff brings this action, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, for the purpose of asserting the claims alleged in this Complaint on a common basis. 25. A class action is a superior means, and the only practicable means, by which the named Plaintiff and unknown Class members can challenge the City's unlawful poverty-based post-arrest detention scheme. 26. This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a Class action pursuant to Rule 23(a)(1)-(4) and Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 27. This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of those provisions. 28. The Plaintiff proposes one Class seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Declaratory and Injunctive Class is defined as: All arrestees unable to pay for their release who are currently or who will become in the custody of the City of Dothan as a result of an arrest involving a misdemeanor or traffic offense. A. Nurnerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) 29. Every traffic and misdemeanor arrestee in Dothan is presented with the City's standard choice of pay orjail. Arrestees are held in jail for varying lengths of time depending on how long it takes them to make the cash payment that the City requires for their release. 30. Some arrestees are able to pay for release immediately. Others are forced to wait a day or two 'days until they or family members can make the payment. Others are not able to pay or to find someone else to pay for them even after a few days. 31. Each week, an average of approximately ten (10) persons have not been able to pay the secured money bond set by City policy. Those arrestees are still in custody and appear before
6

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 1 Filed 06/16/15 Page 7 of 12
the Dothan municipal judge by video. Thus, the number of future class members, even in a period of several months, numbers in the hundreds.
B. Commonality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). 32. The relief sought is common to all members of the Class, and common questions of law and fact exist as to all members Of the Class. The named Plaintiff seeks relief concerning whether the City's policies, practices, and procedures violate the rights of the Class members and relief mandating the City to change its policies, practices, and procedures so that the constitutional rights of the Class members will be protected in the future. 33. These common legal and factual questions arise from one central scheme and set of policiós and practices: the City's post-arrest detention scheme. The City operates this scheme openly and in materially the same manner every day. The material components of the scheme do not vary from Class member to Class member, and the resolution of these legal and factual issues Will determine whether all of the members of the class are entitled to the constitutional relief-that they seek. Among the most important, but not the only, common questions of fact are:
• Whether the City of Dothan has a policy and practice of using fixed offense-based money bail to determine the amount of money necessary to avoid post-arrest detention;
• Whether the-City of-Dothan-requires that bail amounUo be-paid- up frontallow release;
• What post-arrest procedures the City of Dothan performs on misdemeanor arrestees, for example, whether Dothan has any other alternate procedures for promptly releasing indigent people unable to afford a monetary payment.
34. Among the most important common question of law are:.
• Whether a fixed secured bail procedure setting standard amounts-of money required up front to avoid post-arrest detention violates the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses.
C. Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3).
7

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 1 Filed 06/16/15 Page 8 of 12
35. The named Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the Class, and he has the same interests in this case as all other members of the Classes that he represents. Each of them suffers injuries from the failure of the City to comply with the basic constitutional provisions: they are each confined in jail because they could not afford to pay the City's standardized cash bond amount. The anSWer to whether the City's scheme of policies and practices is unconstitutional will determine the claims of the named Plaintiff and every other Class member.
36. If the named Plaintiff succeeds in the claim that the City's policies and practices concerning post-arrest detention violate his constitutional rights, that ruling will likewise benefit every other member of the Class.
D. Adequacy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). 37. The named Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because his interests in the vindication of the legal claims that he raises are entirely aligned with the interests of the other Class members, who each have the same basic constitutional claims. He is a member of the Class, and his interests coincide with, and are not antagonistic to, those of the other Class members. 38. There are no known conflicts of interest among members of the proposed Class, all of whom have a similar interest in vindicating their constitutional rights in the face of their unlawful treatment by their local government. 39. The Plaintiff is represented by attorneys from Equal Justice Under Law who have experience litigating complex civil rights natters in federal court and extensive knowledge of both secured "bail schedule" schemes and the relevant constitutional law. Class Counsel has conducted an investigation over a period of months into the use of the generic secured bail in Alabama including numerous interviews with witnesses, experts, City employees, inmates, families of
8

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 1 Filed 06/16/15 Page 9 of 12
inmates, local attorneys, community members, statewide experts in the functioning of Alabama municipal courts, and national experts in post-arrest detention procedures and constitutional law. Class Counsel has studied the way that these systems function in other cities in order to investigate the wide array of reasonable constitutional options in practice for municipalities like the City of Dothan. As a result, Class Counsel has devoted enormous resources to becoming familiar with the "bail schedule" scheme and with all of the relevant state and federal laws and procedures that relate to it.
40. Counsel for the Plaintiff has also been lead counsel in several similar class action constitutional challenges to unlawful secured money bail practices in Alabama, Missouri, and Mississippi. See Jones et al. v. City of Clanton, 15-cv-34 (M.D. Ala. 2015); Pierce et. al. v. City of Velda City, 15-cv-570 (E.D. Mo. 2015); Powell et al. v. City of St. Ann, 415-cv-840 (E.D. Mo. 2015); Thompson et al. v. City of Moss Point, 1:15-cv-00182-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss. 2015). Counsel has previously been the lead attorney in a recent constitutional civil rights class action lawsuit against the City of Montgomery. See Mitchell et al, v. City ofMontgomery, 2014-cv-186 (M.D. Ala. 2014). That case involved a major investigation and landmark litigation to end widespread injustices involving the jailing of impoverished people by the City of Montgomery over a period of years for their non-payment of debt from traffic tickets.4
41. The Plaintiff is also represented in this case by local Class Counsel. J. Mitchell McGuire,' who has devoted time and resources to investigating the City's policies and practices,
Counsel was also previously the lead attorney in a constitutional civil rights class action against the District of Columbia in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. See 1: 1 3-cv-00686-ESH (D.D.C. 2013). In that litigation, undersigned counsel was responsible for investigating and building the complex constitutional claims against the District of Columbia, authoring the legal filings in the class action case, and negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding with the District of Columbia Attorney General that stayed the class action litigation and began to implement sweeping changes to the County's policies and practices governing the civil forfeiture of property by the District's Metropolitan Police Department—procedures that affect thousands of putative class members every year.
J. Mitchell McGuire is Managing Partner of McGuire & Associates, in Montgomery.

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 1 Filed 06/16/15 Page 10 of 12
and who has experience in the functioning of Alabama municipal police departments and courts, including post-arrest procedures. Attorney McGuire also regularly represents impoverished and marginalized people in civil and criminal actions in Alabama and federal courts. He was also class counsel in the Mitchell and Jones class action lawsuits before this Couit The interests of the members of the Class will be fairly and adequately protected by the Plaintiff and his attorneys.6
E. Rule 23(b)(2) 42. Class action Status is appropriate because the City, through the policies, practices, and procedures that make up its post-arrest detention scheme has acted in the same unconstitutional manner with respect to all class members. The City of Dothan has created and applied a simple scheme of post-arrest detention and release: it charges standard secured money amounts for every misdemeanor arrestee. The City releases those who can pay and detains those who cannot. The detained arrestees are eventually taken to court on the following Thursday for a first appearance, sometimes as many as six days after arrest. 43. The Class therefore seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin the City from continuing in the future to detain impoverished arrestees who cannot afford cash payments. Because the putative Class challenges the City's scheme as unconstitutional through declaratory and injunctive relief that would apply the same relief to every member of the Class, Rule 23(b)(2)
6 At least with respect to a Damages Class under Rule 23(b)(3) (which the Plaintiff does not seek here), courts have held that "ascertainability" is, in essence, a fifth Rule 23 prerequisite. A class must be 'adequately defined and clearly ascertainable." De Bremaecker v. Short, 433 F.2d 733, 734 (5th Cit. 1970). "In other words, the class must meet a minimum standard of definiteness which will allow the trial court to determine membership in the proposed class," although "it is not necessary that the members of the class be so clearly identified that any member can be presently ascertained." Earnest v. GMC, 923 F. Supp. 1469, 1473 & n.4 (N.D. Ala. 1996) (quoting Carpenter v. Davis, 424 F.2d 257, 260 (5th Cir. 1970)).
Although it is doubtful that such a requirement should exist with respect to a purely injunctive class under Rule 23(b)(2) see e.g.,Marcus v BMW ofN. Am LLC 687 F 3d 583 592r593 (3d Cir, 2012) that requirement is easily met here. The County of Montgomery already has in its possession the identity of each and every Person who it is keeping in its custody after an arrest because of the inability to post a cash bond. Also, by necessity, the County will come to know the identity of each person that it arrests in the future.
10

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 1 Filed 06/16/15 Page 11 of 12

is appropriate and necessary.

44. Injunctive relief compelling the City to comply with these -constitutional rights will

similarly protect each member of the Class from being subjected to the City's unlawful policies

and practices. A declaration and injunction stating that the City cannot use a fixed secured money

bail scheme that jails indigent arrestees but frees arrestees with financial means would provide

relief to every member of the Class. Therefore, declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to

the Class as a whole is appropriate.

45. Plaintiff seeks the following relief and hereby demands a jury in this cause for all

matters so appropriate.

Claims for Relief

•

Count One: Defendant City of Dothan Violates Plaintiff's Rights By Jailing Him

Because He Cannot Afford A Monetary Payment Prior to a First Court Appearance.

46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-45.

47. The Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses have long

prohibited imprisoning a person for the person's inability to make a monetary payment Defendant

violates Plaintiff's rights by jailing him when he cannot afford to pay the secured bail amount

generically set by the City of Dothan.

Reauest for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the other Class members request that this Court issue the

following relief:

a. A declaratory judgment that the Defendant City violates the Plaintiffs and Class members' constitutional rights by jailing them because of their inability to pay a generically set amount of money to secure release-after an arrest;
b. An order and judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendant City of Dothan from enforcing the unconstitutional post-arrest money-based detention policies and practices against the Plaintiff and the Class of similarly situated people that he represents;

II

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 1 Filed 06/16/15 Page 12 of 12
c. A judgment compensating the individual named Plaintiff for the damages that he previously suffered as a result of the City's unconstitutional and unlawful conduct, including damages resulting from his confinement in jail;
d. An order and judgment granting reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and any other relief this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, /s/J. Mitch McGuire J. Mitch McGuire (ASB-83 17- 69M) Managing Partner McGuire & Associates, LLC 31 Clayton Street Dothan, AL 36104 (334)-5 17-1000 http://www.mandabusinesslaw.com Is/ Alec Karakatsanis Alec Karnkatanis (D.C. Bar No. 999294) (Pending admission PrO Hac Vice) Co-Founder Equal Justice Under Law 916 G Street, NW Suite 701 Washington, DC 20001 (202)-681-2409 alecequa1justiceunder1aw.org Attorney.for PlaintUjs
12

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/15 Page 1 of 1
I. I

c

dzxv 1

QV / 1144t A 6

A5 wccsc4-o

çio1

12

•jc 2o 5 I r

C51 fr1

QL

ç <e 6L)

-4 i

tP -e

& frW

cL

I .

(

,'- PC-
tpa

4TAf b'.*(E
TWO

ocD 1J

?fl.z Imp

gSb
'E-.

- (e,
Qjc

tefl

-

vc

-r,• b' I fr1 -U

cfr
;$(ct L2 J 2-e t€
oL-( (j

çr.

-IC. J

w

Sel TV

M t

e

3 -QL' rc.-

fLt

"1tc

 
 Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 7 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY COOPER, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated people,

Plaintiffs,

V.

CASE NO, 1:1 5-CV-425-WKW

THE CITY OF DOTHAN,

Defendant,

Plaintiff Anthony Cooper has filed suit against the City of Dothan, Alabama ("the City"), on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals, alleging that the City's arrest and detention policies and practices routinely result in the confinement of Individuals solely due to their poverty in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. Specifically, he argues that the City's post-arrest detention scheme featuring preset and undifferentiated bond amounts forces indigent individuals arrested on misdemeanor offenses to remain behind bars for as long as a week, while allowing those who can afford the scheduled bond to walk free. Before the court are the named Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order or, in the alternative, motion for preliminary injunction (Doe. # 2) and supplemental motion for temporary restraining order (Dock # 6).

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 7 Filed 06/18/15 Page 2 of 6
"A temporary restraining order protects against irreparable harm and preserves the status quo until a meaningful decision on the merits can be made,"
Schiavo ex rd. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1289, 1297 (11th Cir, 2005). A
temporary restraining order may be issued without notice only if (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A)—(B). Additionally, the elements that apply to a motion for preliminary injunction also govern the issuance of a temporary restraining order. See Parker v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 275 F.3d 1032, 1034-35 (11th Cir. 2001). These four elements are "(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a threat of irreparable injury, (3) that (the movant'sl own injury would outweigh the injury to the nonmovant, and (4) that the injunction would not disserve the public interest." Tefel v, Rena, 180 F.3d 1286, 1295 (11th Cir, 1999). The movant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to a temporary restraining order. See Parker, 275 F.3d at 1034.
After careful consideration of the record, the court finds that the motion for a temporary restraining order is due to be granted in part and denied in part. The procedural requirements of Rule 65(b) for issuing a temporary restraining order without notice to Defendant are satisfied. An affidavit from Mr. Cooper has been
2

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 7 Filed 06/18/15 Page 3 of 6
filed evidencing immediate and irreparable injury, as discussed below. Moreover, counsel for Mr. Cooper has certified his efforts to notify the City and has provided sufficient reasons why notice should not be required.
Mr. Cooper also has demonstrated the four elements required for temporary injunctive relief. First, he has highlighted long standing case law from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as from the Supreme Court of Alabama, that establishes the unconstitutionality of a pretrial detention scheme whereby indigent detainees are confined for periods of time solely due to their inability to tender monetary amounts in accordance with a master bond schedule, while those able to afford the preset bond may quickly purchase their release. See Pugh v. Rainwater, 572 P.2d 1053, 1057 (5th Cir, 1978) ("Utilization of a master bond schedule provides speedy and convenient release for those who have no difficulty meeting its requirements. The incarceration of those who cannot, without meaningful consideration of other possible alternatives, infringes on both due process and equal protection requirements.")'; State v. Blake, 642 So, 2d 959, 968 (Ala. 1994) (recognizing the unconstitutionality and irrationality of a bail scheme that allows "a defendant with financial means who is charged with a noncapital violent felony, and
In Bonner v, City of .Prichard, the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit issued prior to October 1, 1981. See 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en bane).
3

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 7 Filed 06/18/15 Page 4 of 6
who may potentially pose a great threat to community safety," to "obtain immediate release simply by posting bail," while forcing an "indigent defendant charged with a relatively minor misdemeanor" to "remain incarcerated for a minimum of three days, and perhaps longer, before being able to obtain judicial public bail").
Furthermore, Mr. Cooper has brought to the court's attention a recent consent judgment from the Eastern District of Missouri in which a post-arrest detention scheme centered upon a secured bail system that failed to account for indigency was declared unconstitutional. Pierce v. City of Velda City, No. 4:15-cv-570HEA (RD. Mo. June 3, 201 5). The similarity between the post-arrest practices of the City of Velda City, Missouri, and the City of Dothan, coupled with the constitutional principles espoused in Pugh and Blake, provide sufficient grounds to find that Mr. Cooper has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his challenge.'
Second, if a temporary restraining order is not entered, Mr. Cooper will remain confined at the City jail pending his initial appearance as a result of his inability to pay the schedule bond amount. Mr. Cooper has sufficiently demonstrated that this threat of injury is immediate and irreparable. Third, the alleged injury to Mr. Cooper would outweigh any injury to the City, and, as
As the Fifth Circuit explained in Pugh, "We have no doubt that in the case of an indigent
whose appearance at trial could reasonably be assured by one of the alternate forms of release,
pretrial confinement for inability to post money bail would constitute imposition of an excessive r$trairjt," 572 F. 2d at 1058.
4

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 7 Filed 06/18/15 Page 5 of 6
demonstrated by Mr. Cooper, the City has constitutional alternatives to confining Mr. Cooper in response to his inability to pay the preset bond, while accounting for his future court appearance. Fourth, the public interest will not be disserved by Mr. Cooper's release from confinement.
Generally, security is required when a temporary restraining order issues. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(e). This is not the typical case, however, in that the present action is grounded upon Mr. Cooper's lack of financial resources. In light of Mr. Cooper's indigency, the ability of the City to secure Mr. Cooper's future appearance through alternative measures, and the court's determination that no costs or damages will be incurred by the City during the pendency of the temporary restraining order, no security bond will be required.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The motion for temporary restraining order (Doe. # 2)is GRANTED insofar as the City is ORDERED to release Plaintiff Anthony Cooper immediately either on his own recognizance or subject to an unsecured bond or other reasonable and lawful non-financial conditions. 2. Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order (Doe. # 2) is DENTED in all other respects. 3. A hearing to determine whether to convert this temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction is set for an evidentiary hearing on June 26, 2015
5

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 7 Filed 06/18/15 Page 6 of 6
at 10:00 a.m., at the Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse, 100 West Troy Street, Dothan, Alabama,
4, By 12:00 p.m., Monday, June 22, 2015, Defendant is DIRECTED to respond to the motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc, # 2).
5. By 12:00 p.m., Thursday, June 257 2015, Plaintiff may file a reply to
Defendant's response. 6. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to serve Defendant with a copy of this Order,
and the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to fax to Defendant a copy of this Order. DONE this 18th day of June, 2015, atØt.m.
4., & L - 4, r^^f
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 7-1 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 2
A copy of this checklist is available at the website for the USCA, 11th Circuit at www.ca11.uscourts.gov Effective on December 1, 2013, the new fee to file an appeal will increase from $455.00 to $505.00.
CIVIL APPEALS JURISDICTION CHECKLIST
1. Appealable Orders: Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction conferred and strictly limited by statute:
(a) Appeals from final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291: Only final orders and judgments of district courts, or final orders of bankruptcy courts which have been appealed to and fully resolved by a district court under 28 U.S.C.§ 158, generally are appealable. A final decision is one that “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 701 F.2d 1 365, 1 368 ( 11th Ci r. 1 983). A magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is not final and appealable until judgment thereon is entered by a district court judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
(b) In cases involving multiple parties or multiple claims, a judgment as to fewer than all parties or all claims is not a final, appealable decision unless the district court has certified the judgment for immediate review under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Williams v. Bishop, 732 F.2d 885, 885- 86 (11th Cir. 1984). A judg ment which resolves all issues except matters, such as attorneys’ fees and costs, that are collateral to the merits, is immediately appealable. Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S.196, 201, 108 S.Ct. 1717, 1721-22, 100 L .Ed.2d 178 (1988); LaChance v. Duffy’s Draft House, Inc., 146 F.3d 832, 837 (11th Cir. 1998).
(c) Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a): Appeals are permitted from orders “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions . . .” and from “[i]nterlocutory decrees . . . determining the rights and liabilities of parties to admiralty cases in which appeals from final decrees are allowed.” Interlocutory appeals from orders denying temporary restraining orders are not permitted.
(d) Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Fed.R.App.P. 5: The certification specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) must be obtained before a petition for permission to appeal is filed in the Court of Appeals. The district court’s denial of a motion for certification is not itself appealable.
(e) Appeals pursuant to judicially created exceptions to the finality rule: Limited exceptions are discussed in cases including, but not limited to: Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69S.Ct. 1221, 1225-26, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949); Atlantic Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 890 F.2d 371, 376 (11th Cir. 1989); Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148, 157, 85 S.Ct. 308, 312, 13 L.Ed.2d 199 (1964). Rev.: 4/04

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 7-1 Filed 06/18/15 Page 2 of 2
2. Time for Filing: The timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Rinaldo v. Corbett, 256 F.3d 1276, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001). In civil cases, Fed.R.App.P. 4(a) and (c) set the following time limits:
(a) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1): A notice of appeal in compliance with the requirements set forth in Fed.R.App.P. 3 must be filed in the district court within 30 days after the entry of the order or judgment appealed from. However, if the United States or an officer or agency thereof is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 60 days after such entry. THE NOTICE MUST BE RECEIVED AND FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT NO LATER THAN THE LAST DAY OF THE APPEAL PERIOD – no additional days are provided for mailing. Special filing provisions for inmates are discussed below.
(b) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(3): “If one party timely files a notice of appeal, any other party may file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the date when the first notice was filed, or within the time otherwise prescribed by this Rule 4(a), whichever period ends later.”
(c) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4): If any party makes a timely motion in the district court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of a type specified in this rule, the time for appeal for all parties runs from the date of entry of the order disposing of the last such timely filed motion.
(d) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5) and 4(a)(6): Under certain limited circumstances, the district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal. Under Rule 4(a)(5), the time may be extended if a motion for an extension is filed within 30 days after expiration of the time otherwise provided to file a notice of appeal, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Under Rule 4(a)(6), the time may be extended if the district court finds upon motion that a party did not timely receive notice of the entry of the judgment or order, and that no party would be prejudiced by an extension.
(e) Fed.R.App.P. 4(c): If an inmate confined to an institution files a notice of appeal in either a civil case or a criminal case, the notice of appeal is timely if it is deposited in the institution’s internal mail system on or before the last day for filing. Timely filing may be shown by a declaration in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 or a notarized statement, either of which must set forth the date of deposit and state that first-class postage has been prepaid.
3. Format of the notice of appeal: Form 1, Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, is a suitable format. See also Fed.R.App.P. 3(c). A pro se notice of appeal must be signed by the appellant.
4. Effect of a notice of appeal: A district court loses jurisdiction (authority) to act after the filing of a timely notice of appeal, except for actions in aid of appellate jurisdiction or to rule on a timely motion of the type specified in Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4).

 
 Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 20 Filed 06/25/15 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY COOPER, individually

)

and on behalf of a class of similarly

)

situated people,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

Case No. 15-cv-425-WKW

)

THE CITY OF DOTHAN,

)

)

Defendant.

)

(Class Action)

MOTION TO CONTINUE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO DENY THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS MOOT

COMES NOW the City of Dothan (“City”) and files this motion to continue the hearing set in this matter for June 26, 2015 to give the Parties time to explore settlement given that any constitutional violation has been corrected. In the alternative, the City asks this Court to deny the motion for preliminary injunction as moot given the revised practices of the Municipal Court as set out below. As grounds for the same, the City shows the following:
(1) The complaint and motion for temporary restraining order [Docs. 1 & 2] in this action allege several constitutional violations in connection with the bail schedule as applied to indigent defendants brought before the Dothan’s Municipal Court.
(2) As evidenced by Exhibits 1 and 2 to this document, the City of Dothan has in place a system that is in all respects identical to the system now in place in Clanton, Alabama, wherein individuals upon their arrests are released on a signature bond, unless the individuals have outstanding warrants for failures to appear. See Doc. 16 at 3 (Plaintiff’s counsel’s characterization of the Clanton court’s bail practices); see also Jones v. City of Clanton, United States District Court for the Middle District, No. 2:15-cv-34-MHT, Doc. 66 & 66-1 (brief describing current

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 20 Filed 06/25/15 Page 2 of 4
practices and order setting forth the same). Also, like Clanton, pursuant to Exhibit 1, the defendants in Dothan with outstanding failure to appear warrants are given the opportunity to be released pursuant to a secured bond, cash bond or property bond in accordance with the amounts set out in the bail schedule. Id. Also, like Clanton’s court’s practice, pursuant to Exhibit 1, those who are not released pursuant to the bail schedule are receiving a bond hearing and consideration of their indigence within forty-eight hours of their arrest. Id.
(3) The Plaintiff has conceded that the Clanton system, which has now been adopted in all material respects by Dothan, cures any constitutional problems. In Plaintiff Cooper’s Reply to Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff Cooper’s counsel states that “Clanton cured the illegality by using unsecured bond for all new arrestees and therefore ended the regime in which the indigent were kept in jail for several days after an arrest because of their poverty.” Doc. 16 at 3.
(4) The City of Dothan’s Municipal Court judge, without ever having been made a defendant in this action, initiated these changes.
(5) Under these circumstances – and given that the named Plaintiff has been released from custody and others similarly situated are being released upon signing a signature bond – there is no longer a need for a preliminary injunction or conversion of the TRO into a preliminary injunction.
(6) Also attached hereto is an affidavit of the City of Dothan’s Court Administrator attesting to the import and effect of the Judge’s order.
(7) As additional grounds for the continuance, the City of Dothan have hired new counsel who have only this afternoon made an appearance in this case and were not hired until the
2

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 20 Filed 06/25/15 Page 3 of 4
evening of June 23. Said counsel need additional time to prepare and gather the facts and
information relative to the issues raised in the case.
(8) Finally, undersigned counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel to explore the possibility
of continuing the preliminary injunction hearing for the purposes of pursuing settlement, and the
Plaintiff’s counsel declined.
WHEREFORE, the City of Clanton would request that this Court deny the Motion for
Preliminary Injunction as moot and set a status conference in three weeks so that the Parties may
explore a global settlement. In the alternative, the City of Clanton would request that the Court
continue the preliminary injunction hearing and set a status conference in three weeks during
which the Parties can explore settlement.
s/Shannon L. Holliday Lee H. Copeland (ASB-3461-o72l) Shannon L. Holliday (ASB-5440-y77s) Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, P.A. Post Office Box 347 Montgomery, AL 36101-0347 T: 334/834-1180 F: 334/834-3172 Email: copeland@copelandfranco.com Email: holliday@copelandfranco.com
s/F. Lenton White F. Lenton White (WHI035) City Attorney P.O. Box 2128 Dothan, AL 36302 T: 334-615-3130
s/D. Kevan Kelly D. Kevan Kelly (KEL025) Assistant City Attorney P.O. Box 2128 Dothan, AL 36302 T: 334-615-3130
Counsel for Defendant – City of Dothan
3

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 20 Filed 06/25/15 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 25th day of June, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: J. Mitchell McGuire McGuire & Associates, LLC 31 Clayton Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Email: jmcguire@mandabusinesslaw.com Alec Karakatsanis Equal Justice Under Law 916 G Street, NW Suite 701 Washington, D.C. 20001 Email: alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org
s/Shannon L. Holliday Of Counsel
4

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 20-1 Filed 06/25/15 Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 20-1 Filed 06/25/15 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 20-1 Filed 06/25/15 Page 3 of 3 ADDENDUM A

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 20-2 Filed 06/25/15 Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 20-2 Filed 06/25/15 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 20-2 Filed 06/25/15 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT 1

 
 Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 25 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY COOPER, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated people,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE CITY OF DOTHAN,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:15-CV-425-WKW ) ) ) )

ORDER

The Parties have conferred and have agreed that the procedures set forth in

the Dothan Municipal Court order issued on June 25, 2015 (Doc. # 20-1), if

followed by the City, satisfy the concerns raised in the Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Preliminary Injunction.

The Parties also represent to the court in good faith that they will continue to

negotiate a settlement of this case. The Parties have entered into the stipulations

attached as Exhibit 1. The Parties were unable to agree on the nature of the order

to be entered.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the City of Dothan and its

employees, officers, and agents comply with the procedures set forth in the

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 25 Filed 06/26/15 Page 2 of 3
Municipal Court order (Doc. # 20-1) issued on June 25, 2015, until settlement, final judgment, or further order of this court.
The City of Dothan shall monitor compliance and shall notify this court and Plaintiffs’ counsel within twenty-four hours of notice to the City of any intent by the Municipal Court Judge to make a material change to the June 25, 2015 order. At that point, any conflict between this Order, constitutional requirements, and state law requiring the City of Dothan to comply with the order issued by the Municipal Court will be taken up by the court.
It is further ORDERED that the Temporary Restraining Order heretofore entered (Doc. # 7) is dissolved.
If the case is not otherwise resolved by then, the parties shall file a joint status report on or before July 24, 2015.
DONE this 26th day of June, 2015. /s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 25 Filed 06/26/15 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 1 STIPULATIONS The Parties have conferred and have stipulated that the procedures set forth in the Dothan Municipal Court order issued on June 25, 2015 (Doc. # 20-1), if followed, satisfy the concerns raised in the Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Parties also stipulate that they will continue in good faith to negotiate a settlement of this case. The City of Dothan will comply with the procedures set forth in the Municipal Court order (Doc. # 20-1) issued on June 25, 2015, until settlement, final judgment, or further order of this Court. The City of Dothan will notify this Court and the Plaintiff’s counsel at the earliest time practicable after notice to the City of any intent by the Municipal Court Judge to make a material change to the June 25, 2015 order. At that point, any conflict between these Stipulations, constitutional requirements, or state law requiring the City of Dothan to comply with the order issued by the Municipal Court may be taken under consideration on an expedited basis if any Party so desires.
3

 
 Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 39 Filed 04/13/16 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY COOPER, individually )

and on behalf of a class of similarly )

situated people,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE CITY OF DOTHAN,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. 1:15-CV-425-WKW

CONSENT DECREE

Before the court is the parties’ joint motion for entry of a consent decree. (Doc.

# 38). Upon consideration of the motion, and for good cause, it is ORDERED that

the motion (Doc. # 38) is GRANTED.

The Parties have conferred and have stipulated that the procedures set forth

in the Dothan Municipal Court order issued on June 25, 2015 (Doc. # 20-1), if

followed, satisfy the concerns raised in Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary

Injunction. (Doc. # 2.) In accordance with the parties’ stipulations and the joint

motion for entry of a consent decree (Doc. # 38), is it ORDERED:

1. The City of Dothan shall comply with the procedures set forth in the

Municipal Court order (Doc. # 20-1) issued on June 25, 2015, for a period of no

less than three years from the date of this Order.

Case 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-TFM Document 39 Filed 04/13/16 Page 2 of 2
2. During the three-year period, the City of Dothan will notify this Court and Plaintiff’s counsel at the earliest time practicable after notice to the City of any intent by the Municipal Court Judge to make a material change to the June 25, 2015 Municipal Court order. At that point, any conflict between this Order, constitutional requirements, or state law requiring the City of Dothan to comply with the order issued by the Municipal Court may be brought before this Court on an expedited basis if any party so desires. 3. If, during the three-year period, Plaintiff concludes that Defendant has not complied in good faith with this Order, Plaintiff may petition the Court for the entry of a permanent injunction against the City of Dothan and any other equitable relief as deemed appropriate. 4. All claims for damages are dismissed with prejudice, all requests and motions for class certification are withdrawn by the parties, and all claims for relief are dismissed subject to the court’s power to enforce the consent decree.
DONE this 13th day of April, 2016. /s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-425 As of: 05/04/2020 06:39 PM CDT 1 of 5
CLOSED,JOINT_ASSIGN
U.S. District Court Alabama Middle District (Dothan) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:15−cv−00425−WKW−TFM

Cooper v. The City of Dothan (JOINT ASSIGN) Assigned to: Honorable Judge William Keith Watkins Referred to: Honorable Judge Terry F. Moorer Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/16/2015 Date Terminated: 04/13/2016 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Anthony Cooper individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated people

represented by Alec Karakatsanis Equal Justice Under Law Executive Director 916 G St NW − Ste 701 Washington, DC 20001 202−681−2409 Email: alec@civilrightscorps.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Mitchell McGuire McGuire & Associates LLC 31 Clayton Street Montgomery, AL 36104 334−517−1000 Fax: 334−517−1327 Email: jmcguire@mandabusinesslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant The City of Dothan

represented by Derel Kevan Kelly City of Dothan Attorney's Office P. O. Box 2128 Dothan, AL 36302 334−615−3130 Fax: 334−615−3139 Email: tmunson@dothan.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Freddie Lenton White , II City of Dothan Attorney's Office P. O. Box 2128 Dothan, AL 36302 334−615−3130 Fax: 334−615−3139 Email: lwhite@dothan.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lee Hall Copeland Copeland Franco Screws & Gill, PA PO Box 347 Montgomery, AL 36101−0347 334−834−1180 Fax: 334−834−3172 Email: copeland@copelandfranco.com

Case: 1:15-cv-425 As of: 05/04/2020 06:39 PM CDT 2 of 5
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shannon Lynn Holliday Copeland Franco Screws & Gill, PA PO Box 347 Montgomery, AL 36101−0347 334−834−1180 Fax: 334−834−3172 Email: holliday@copelandfranco.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/16/2015 06/16/2015 06/16/2015 06/16/2015
06/17/2015 06/17/2015 06/18/2015
06/19/2015

# Docket Text
1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against The City of Dothan ( Filing fee $ 400.00 receipt number 4602037212.), filed by Anthony Cooper. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 fee receipt)(djy, ) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, or in the alternative MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ; MOTION (REQUEST) for Expedited Hearing by Anthony Cooper. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(djy, ) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
3 MOTION to Certify Class by Anthony Cooper. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(djy, ) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
4 Motion for Alec Karakatsanis to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 50.00 receipt number 4602037213.) by Anthony Cooper. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 fee receipt)(djy, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2015: # 3 USDC Certificate of Good Standing) (wcl, ). Modified on 6/23/2015 to attach a PDF document of the required US District Court certificate of good standing which was previously omitted in error (wcl, ). (Entered: 06/17/2015)
5 Summons Issued as to The City of Dothan and mailed CMRRR with copies of complaint and various motions to the defendant. (djy, ) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
6 Supplemental MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order without oral or written notice by Anthony Cooper. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(McGuire, Joseph) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
7 (DISSOLVED PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S 25 ORDER) ORDER GRANTING plf's 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order insofar as the City is ORDERED to release plf Anthony Cooper immediately either on his own recognizance or subject to an unsecured bond or other reasonable and lawful non−financial conditions; (2) plf's 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED in all other respects; (3) a hearing to determine whether to convert this temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction is set for Evidentiary Hearing on 6/26/2015 @ 10:00 AM before Chief Judge William Keith Watkins, at the Federal Bldg & US Courthouse, 100 West Troy Street, Dothan, AL; (4) By 12:00 p.m., Monday, 6/22/2015, Def is DIRECTED to respond to the motion for a preliminary injunction; (5) By 12:00 p.m., Thursday, 6/25/2015, Plf may file a reply to Def's response; (6) Plf is DIRECTED to serve Def with a copy of this Order, and the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to fax to Def a copy of this Order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 6/18/15 @ 10:00 a.m. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist). FAXED, to Dothan City Attorney, as directed.(djy, ) Modified on 6/26/2015 (wcl, ). (Entered: 06/18/2015)
8 ORDERED that the evidentiary hearing currently set for 6/26/2015, at 10:00 AM, at the Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse, 100 West Troy Street, Dothan, Alabama, is RESET for June 26, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., at the Frank M. Johnson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse, One Church Street, Courtroom 2−B, Montgomery, Alabama; DIRECTING the Clerk to fax to Dft a copy of this Order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 6/19/2015. (furn: calendar, ar) (FAXED, to Dothan City Attorney, as directed.) (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/19/2015)

Case: 1:15-cv-425 As of: 05/04/2020 06:39 PM CDT 3 of 5

06/22/2015 06/22/2015
06/22/2015 06/22/2015 06/23/2015 06/23/2015 06/23/2015
06/23/2015 06/24/2015 06/24/2015 06/25/2015
06/25/2015 06/25/2015 06/25/2015 06/25/2015
06/25/2015

9 NOTICE of Compliance and Release of Plaintiff by Anthony Cooper re 7 Order. (McGuire, Joseph) Modified on 6/22/2015 to clarify the docket text (wcl, ). (Entered: 06/22/2015)
10 RESPONSE to Motion re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Hearing filed by The City of Dothan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(White, Freddie) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2015 to redact personal information contained in original filing pursuant to the E−government rules: # 5 Exhibit 4 (Redacted)) (wcl, ). Modified on 6/22/2015 (wcl, ). (Entered: 06/22/2015)
***Attorney Freddie Lenton White, II,Derel Kevan Kelly for The City of Dothan added pursuant to the 10 Response. (No pdf attached to this entry) (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/22/2015)
11 MOTION to Strike Exhibit 10−4 by Anthony Cooper. (Karakatsanis, Alec) (Entered: 06/22/2015)
12 NOTICE of Correction re 4 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, to attach a PDF document of the required US District Court certificate of good standing which was previously omitted in error. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment PDF Document of USDC Certificate of Good Standing to Docket Entry 4 )(wcl, ) (Entered: 06/23/2015)
13 TEXT ORDER granting 4 Motion for Alec Karakatsanis to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 6/23/2015. (No pdf attached to this entry) (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/23/2015)
14 Return Receipt Card showing service of Summons and Complaint signed by D.C. for The City of Dothan served on 6/22/2015, answer due 7/13/2015. (wcl, ) Modified on 6/23/2015 to correct the docket text to reflect the correct signature, the correct service date as 6/23/2015, and the correct answer deadline as 7/13/2015 (wcl, ). (Entered: 06/23/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines: The City of Dothan Answer due 7/13/2015. (No pdf attached to this entry) (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/23/2015)
15 ORDER denying as moot 11 Motion to Strike. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 6/24/2015. (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
16 REPLY to Response to Motion re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Anthony Cooper. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(McGuire, Joseph) Modified on to clarify the docket text 6/24/2015 (wcl, ). (Entered: 06/24/2015)
17 ORDERED that the hearing to determine whether to convert the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction remains set for 6/26/2015, at 10:00 AM, at the Frank M. Johnson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse, One Church Street, Courtroom 2−B, Montgomery, Alabama; The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to provide a court reporter for this hearing. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 6/25/2015. (furn: calendar, ar, wr) (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by Shannon Lynn Holliday on behalf of The City of Dothan (Holliday, Shannon) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by Lee Hall Copeland on behalf of The City of Dothan (Copeland, Lee) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
20 MOTION to Continue or, in the Alternative, to Deny the Preliminary Injunction as Moot by The City of Dothan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Holliday, Shannon) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
21 ORDERED that a telephonic status conference is SET for 6/25/2015, at 4:30 PM; Counsel for Plf and Dft are DIRECTED to participate; Counsel for Dft is DIRECTED to take all necessary action to coordinate and commence the conference call. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 6/25/2015. (furn: calendar, ar, wr)(wcl, ) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
22 RESPONSE in Opposition re 20 MOTION to Continue or, in the Alternative, to Deny the Preliminary Injunction as Moot filed by Anthony Cooper. (Karakatsanis, Alec) (Entered: 06/25/2015)

Case: 1:15-cv-425 As of: 05/04/2020 06:39 PM CDT 4 of 5

06/26/2015 06/26/2015
06/26/2015
06/29/2015 07/24/2015 07/24/2015 07/27/2015 07/27/2015 07/27/2015 07/27/2015 07/29/2015 08/24/2015 01/06/2016 01/18/2016 01/19/2016 02/10/2016

23 ORDERED that the hearing set for 6/26/2015, is CANCELLED; further ORDERED that Dft's 20 Motion to Continue is DENIED as moot. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 6/26/2015. (furn: calendar, ar, wr) (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
24 ORDERED that an on−the−record Telephonic Status Conference is SET for 6/26/2015, at 01:00 PM; Counsel for Plf and Dft are DIRECTED to participate; Counsel for Dft is DIRECTED to take all necessary action to coordinate and commence the conference call. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 6/26/2015. (furn: calendar, ar, wr)(wcl, ) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
25 ORDERED that the City of Dothan and its employees, officers, and agents comply with the procedures set forth in the Nunicipal Court order (Doc. # 20 −1) issued on 6/25/2015, until settlement, final judgment, or further order of this court, as further set out in order; further ORDERED that the 7 Temporary Restraining Order heretofore entered is dissolved; If the case is not otherwise resolved by then, the parties shall file a joint status report on or before 7/24/2015. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 6/26/2015. (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge William Keith Watkins: Status Conference held on 6/29/2015 (PDF available for court use only). (ajr, ) (Entered: 07/02/2015)
26 STATUS REPORT Joint by The City of Dothan. (Holliday, Shannon) Modified on 7/27/2015 to clarify text to reflect as also filed on behalf of Anthony Cooper (qc/djy, ). (Entered: 07/24/2015)
Joint Status report considered to contain a MOTION to Continue by Anthony Cooper, The City of Dothan. (NO PDF document attached to this notice−See Docket Entry 26 ). (djy, ) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
27 Notice of Deficiency requiring filing of Corporate Disclosure/Conflict Statement sent to The City of Dothan; Corporate Disclosures due by 8/6/2015. (Attachments: # 1 standing order and format)(djy, ) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
28 Notice of Deficiency requiring filing of Corporate Disclosure/Conflict Statement sent to Anthony Cooper; Corporate Disclosures due by 8/6/2015. (Attachments: # 1 standing order and format)(djy, ) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
29 Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by The City of Dothan re 27 Notice of Deficiency requiring filing of Corporate Disclosure/Conflict Statement. (Holliday, Shannon) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
30 ORDER upon consideration of the 26 Joint Status report which contains a motion to continue; GRANTING MOTION to Continue to pursue settlement; if the case is not otherwise resolved the parties shall file a joint Status Report due by 8/24/2015. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 7/27/15. (djy, ) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
31 Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Anthony Cooper re 28 Notice of Deficiency requiring filing of Corporate Disclosure/Conflict Statement. (McGuire, Joseph) (Entered: 07/29/2015)
32 STATUS REPORT JOINT by The City of Dothan. (Holliday, Shannon) (Entered: 08/24/2015)
33 ORDER directing that the parties file a joint Status Report on or before 1/18/2016. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 1/6/16. (djy, ) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
34 STATUS REPORT JOINT by The City of Dothan. (Holliday, Shannon) Modified on 1/19/2016 to clarify text to reflect as also filed on behalf of Anthony Cooper (qc/djy, ). (Entered: 01/18/2016)
35 ORDER directing that the parties file a joint Status Report on or before 2/10/2016. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 1/19/16. (djy, ) (Entered: 01/19/2016)
36 JOINT STATUS REPORT by The City of Dothan, Anthony Cooper. (Holliday, Shannon) Modified on 2/11/2016 to add as also filed on behalf of the plf (wcl, ). (Entered: 02/10/2016)

Case: 1:15-cv-425 As of: 05/04/2020 06:39 PM CDT 5 of 5

02/12/2016
04/07/2016 04/13/2016 04/13/2016

37 ORDER directing that the parties shall file a joint stipulation of dismissal on or before 4/11/2016; further ORDERING that the 3 MOTION to Certify Class is DENIED as moot. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 2/12/16. (djy, ) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
38 Joint MOTION Entry of Consent Order by The City of Dothan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Holliday, Shannon) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
39 CONSENT DECREE GRANTING 38 Joint MOTION Entry of a consent decree, as further set out in order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 4/13/16. (djy, ) (Entered: 04/13/2016)
40 FINAL JUDGMENT, in accordance with the Consent Decree entered this date, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice subject to this courts power to enforce the consent decree; directing the Clerk to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the FRCP. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 4/13/16. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, ) (Entered: 04/13/2016)