Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 1 of 62 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

)

SAMANTHA JENKINS, EDWARD

)

BROWN, KEILEE FANT, BYEON

)

WELLS, MELDON MOFFIT, ALLISON )

NELSON, HERBERT NELSON JR.,

)

TONYA DEBERRY, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE CITY OF JENNINGS

)

)

Defendant.

)

___________________________________ )

Case No. _______________ (Jury Trial Demanded)

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Introduction

1. The Plaintiffs in this case are each impoverished people who were jailed by the City

of Jennings because they were unable to pay a debt owed to the City from traffic tickets or other

minor offenses. In each case, the City imprisoned a human being solely because the person could

not afford to make a monetary payment. Although the Plaintiffs pleaded that they were unable to

pay due to their poverty, each was kept in jail indefinitely and none was afforded a lawyer or the

inquiry into their ability to pay that the United States Constitution requires. Instead, they were

threatened, abused, and left to languish in confinement at the mercy of local officials until their

frightened family members could produce enough cash to buy their freedom or until City jail

officials decided, days or weeks later, to let them out for free.

2. Once locked in the Jennings jail, impoverished people owing debts to the City

endure grotesque treatment. They are kept in overcrowded cells; they are denied toothbrushes,

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 2 of 62 PageID #: 2
toothpaste, and soap; they are subjected to the stench of excrement and refuse in their congested cells; they are surrounded by walls smeared with mucus, blood, and feces; they are kept in the same clothes for days and weeks without access to laundry or clean undergarments; they step on top of other inmates, whose bodies cover nearly the entire uncleaned cell floor, in order to access a single shared toilet that the City does not clean; they huddle in cold temperatures with a single thin blanket even as they beg guards for warm blankets; they develop untreated illnesses and infections in open wounds that spread to other inmates; they sleep next to a shower space overgrown with mold and slimy debris; they endure days and weeks without being allowed to use the shower; women are not given adequate hygiene products for menstruation, and the lack of trash removal has on occasion forced women to leave bloody napkins in full view on the cell floor where inmates sleep; they are routinely denied vital medical care and prescription medication, even when their families beg to be allowed to bring medication to the jail; they are provided food so insufficient and lacking in nutrition that inmates are forced to compete to perform demeaning janitorial labor for extra food rations and exercise; and they must listen to the screams of other inmates being beaten or tased or in shrieking pain from unattended medical issues as they sit in their cells without access to books, legal materials, television, or natural light. Perhaps worst of all, they do not know when they will be allowed to leave.
3. In each of the past two years, inmates have committed suicide in the Jennings jail after being confined there solely because they did not have enough money to buy their freedom. Others have attempted to take their own lives under similar conditions.
4. These physical abuses and deprivations are accompanied by other pervasive humiliations. Jennings jail guards routinely taunt impoverished people when they are unable to pay for their release, telling them that they will be released whenever jail staff “feels” like letting
2

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 3 of 62 PageID #: 3
them go. As described in detail below, jail staff routinely laugh at the inmates and humiliate them with discriminatory and degrading epithets about their poverty and their physical appearance.
5. City officials and employees—through their conduct, decisions, training and lack of training, rules, policies, and practices—have built a municipal scheme designed to brutalize, to punish, and to profit. The architecture of this illegal scheme has been in place for many years.1
6. In 2014, the City of Jennings issued an average of more than 2.1 arrest warrants per household and almost 1.4 arrest warrants for every adult , mostly in cases involving unpaid debt for tickets. If the rest of the Saint Louis metropolitan area generated revenue from its courts at the rate done by relatively low-income Jennings, it would have made more than $670 million in the past five years.
7. The City’s modern debtors’ prison scheme has been increasingly profitable to the City of Jennings, earning millions of dollars over the past several years. It has also devastated the City’s poor, trapping them for years in a cycle of increased fees, debts, extortion, and cruel jailings. The families of indigent people borrow money to buy their loved ones out of jail at rates arbitrarily set by jail officials, only for them later to owe more money to the City of Jennings from increased fees and surcharges. Thousands of people like the Plaintiffs take money from their disability checks or sacrifice money that is desperately needed by their families for food, diapers, clothing, rent, and utilities to pay ever increasing court fines, fees, costs, and surcharges. They are told by City officials that, if they do not pay, they will be thrown in jail. The cycle repeats itself, month after month, for years.
1 See, e.g., T.E. Lauer, Prolegomenon to Municipal Court Reform in Missouri, 31 Mo. L. Rev. 69, 93 (1966) (“Our municipal jails are, in almost every case, nothing but calabooses suited at best for temporary detention. The worst of them are comparable with medieval dungeons of the average class; they are the shame of our cities.”); id. at 88 (“[I]t seems that many citizens of the state are being confined needlessly in our city jails…..”); id. at 85 (“[I]t is disgraceful that we do not appoint counsel in our municipal courts to represent indigent persons accused of ordinance violations.”); id. at 90 (“It is clear that many municipalities have at times conceived of their municipal courts in terms of their revenue-raising ability….”).
3

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 4 of 62 PageID #: 4
8. The treatment of Samantha Jenkins, Edward Brown, Keilee Fant, Byeon Wells, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson Jr., and Tonya DeBerry reveals systemic illegality perpetrated by the City of Jennings against some of its poorest people. The City has engaged in the same conduct, as a matter of policy and practice, against many other impoverished human beings on a daily basis for years, unlawfully jailing people if they are too poor to pay debts from traffic tickets and other minor offenses. The result is a Dickensian system that flagrantly violates the basic constitutional and human rights of our community’s most vulnerable people.
9. By and through their attorneys and on behalf of a class of similarly situated impoverished people, the Plaintiffs seek in this civil action the vindication of their fundamental rights, compensation for the violations that they suffered, injunctive relief assuring that their rights will not be violated again, and a declaration that the City’s conduct is unlawful. In the year 2015, these practices have no place in our society.2
Nature of the Action 10. It is and has been the policy and practice of the City of Jennings to jail people when they cannot afford to pay money owed to the City resulting from prior traffic tickets and other minor offenses without conducting any inquiry into the person’s ability to pay and without considering alternatives to imprisonment as required by federal and Missouri law. 11. It is and has been the policy and practice of the City to jail indigent people for these debts without informing them of their right to counsel and without providing adequate counsel. 12. It is and has been the policy and practice of the City to hold prisoners in the City jail indefinitely unless and until the person’s family or friends can make a monetary payment
2 The Plaintiffs make the allegations in this Complaint based on personal knowledge as to matters in which they have had personal involvement and on information and belief as to all other matters. The Plaintiffs have attempted to obtain records from the City, but the Plaintiffs have been provided records that they believe to be incomplete and inconsistent with information in their possession.
4

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 5 of 62 PageID #: 5
sufficient to satisfy the City. It is and has been the policy and practice of the City to bargain with inmates and their families on an amount of money that the City will accept for release.
13. It is and has been the policy and practice of the City to arbitrarily and incrementally reduce the amount of money required for release throughout a person’s indefinite detention, eventually releasing the person for free if the City determines that it is unlikely to profit from further detention.
14. It is and has been the policy and practice of the City to issue and enforce invalid arrest warrants, to threaten debtors that they will be jailed if they do not show up with money, to hold debtors in jail for a week or more without any judicial appearance, and to set and subsequently modify monetary payments necessary for release arbitrarily and without formal process.
15. It is and has been the policy and practice of the City to confine impoverished people who cannot afford their release in grotesque, dangerous, and inhumane conditions.
16. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief. Jurisdiction and Venue
17. This is a civil rights action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. § 1595, and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq ., and the First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
18. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Parties
19. Plaintiff Samantha Jenkins is a 47-year-old woman. Plaintiff Edward Brown is a 62-year-old man. Keilee Fant is a 37-year-old woman. Plaintiff Byeon Wells is a 34-year-old man. Plaintiff Meldon Moffit is a 42-year-old man. Plaintiff Allison Nelson is a 23-year-old
5

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 6 of 62 PageID #: 6

woman. Plaintiff Herbert Nelson, Jr. is a 26-year-old man. Plaintiff Tonya DeBerry is a 52-year-

old woman. All of the named Plaintiffs are residents of the Saint Louis area.

20. Defendant City of Jennings is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of

the State of Missouri. The Defendant operates the Jennings City Jail and the Jennings Municipal

Court.

Factual Background

A.

The Plaintiffs’ Imprisonment

i. Samantha Jenkins

21. Samantha Jenkins is a 47-year-old mother of six children.

22. Ms. Jenkins has been jailed for unpaid debts by the City of Jennings on numerous

occasions over the past 15 years. On none of the occasions did the City of Jennings provide her

an attorney, and the City never made any meaningful inquiry into her indigence prior to jailing her

or during her confinement.

23. As a result, Ms. Jenkins has spent a total of months languishing in dangerous

conditions in the Jennings City Jail, solely because she was too poor to buy her release.

24. Ms. Jenkins’ problems with Jennings began more than a decade ago, when she was

homeless and addicted to crack cocaine. Ms. Jenkins, who had lost custody of her kids at the time,

entered a grocery store and stole several pieces of beef. She was caught and eventually fined by

the City of Jennings.3

3 Ms. Jenkins was kept in pretrial custody for weeks solely because she could not afford a small amount of cash. She was not represented by counsel in that case, and she pled guilty unrepresented when the City informed her that she could be released from jail if she pled guilty and accepted a purely monetary fine. She was ticketed for similar petty theft on at least two occasions during this period.
6

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 7 of 62 PageID #: 7
25. Over the next decade or more, despite not being sentenced to jail in the case, Ms. Jenkins has spent months locked in Jennings’ unsanitary and overcrowded jail because of her inability to pay the monetary fines and costs arising from that judgment.
26. Ms. Jenkins has been clean and sober since 2010. She is now trying to live a flourishing life with her family and three grandchildren. She remains frightened every day that the City of Jennings will jail her again because the City claims that she still owes it money.
27. Her fears are real. In the years since the judgment was entered in City court, the City of Jennings has imprisoned Ms. Jenkins on at least 19 occasions, including on warrants relating to her nonpayment and instances in which she turned herself in after missing payments. She would sometimes be held for up to a week before being taken to a judicial officer. On many occasions, she told the City prosecutor and judge that she could not afford to make any payments. In response, City officials told her that she could not get out of jail unless she paid the City money. Instead of informing her of her right to an attorney, City officials told her to make a phone call to family to get money for her release.
28. As she sat in jail, the amount of money the City required her to pay for her release would incrementally decrease. On several occasions, the City eventually let her out of jail without requiring any payment. On some occasions she was released after being taken to the hospital due to becoming ill amidst the conditions in the City jail.
29. In late November 2012, Ms. Jenkins was released from 18 months in state prison for a technical parole violation in a case having nothing to do with Jennings. Her Missouri parole officer informed her that she had an outstanding warrant in Jennings on an old closed municipal case and encouraged her to go clear it up. Ms. Jenkins went to Jennings to clear up the warrant in early December 2012. Instead of being given a court date, she was jailed. She was told by City
7

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 8 of 62 PageID #: 8
jail guards that she could pay them approximately $1,500 and be released immediately. Otherwise, they told her, she would be kept in jail indefinitely. She could not afford to pay the City. She remained in jail without a lawyer and without seeing a judge for several days until the following Tuesday, when she was brought to court.
30. When she appeared in court, the City of Jennings was represented by an experienced prosecutor, but Ms. Jenkins was not given an attorney. In a matter of seconds, her hearing was over. The City judge told her that her that she would be released only if she paid approximately $1,500. He then told her: “see you next week.” She was returned to the jail. No inquiry was made into her ability to pay.
31. The following Tuesday, the hearing proceeded in materially the same manner, except that the judge told her that she could be released if she paid $300. This time, however, he added that her release amount “will not go below $300.” He then said: “see you next week.” She was returned to the jail. No inquiry was made into her ability to pay.
32. As Ms. Jenkins sat in the Jennings jail, not knowing when she would be released, she met many other women in her position. As Ms. Jenkins talked with the other women jailed for non-payment, none of them could see a way out of the spiral of jail and debt in which they were trapped. Ms. Jenkins felt powerless and completely defeated.
33. On December 23, 2012, two days before what was supposed to be her first Christmas with her children in two years, Ms. Jenkins’ family was able to borrow and raise $300 from friends and relatives to buy her out of jail. They brought the money to the Jennings jail, and the City released Ms. Jenkins immediately after weeks in its custody. The clerk gave her a new court date.
8

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 9 of 62 PageID #: 9
34. When Ms. Jenkins returned to court on that date, she was told her that her old fines were now approximately $1,800, and the judge ordered her to pay $100 per month. Ms. Jenkins told the judge that she was unemployed and just out of prison and did not have any money. The judge told her that she would be jailed if she missed a payment. Pursuant to City policy, no hearing, inquiry, or meaningful process accompanied the decision to order Ms. Jenkins to pay $100 per month. She was not represented by an attorney.
35. Despite being indigent and destitute, Ms. Jenkins borrowed money to pay the court in each of the first few months after her jailing.
36. After several months, Ms. Jenkins went back to the court without any money. She again appeared on the Tuesday evening docket without an attorney, and the City was represented by the City prosecutor. When she told the judge that she did not have any money, the judge told her that he would give her 72 hours to pay and that she would go to jail if she did not bring the money by 4:01 p.m. on Friday afternoon.
37. Ms. Jenkins was unable to make a payment by that date, and the City issued a warrant for her arrest, even though she had not missed a court date.
38. Pursuant to their policy and practice, the City prosecutor and City judge did not make any inquiry into her ability to pay or into any alternatives to imprisonment as required by federal and Missouri law. The City did not appoint an attorney to represent Ms. Jenkins and to explain to her what was happening.
39. The warrant remained for Ms. Jenkins’s arrest—threatening her at any moment with forcible jailing every time she went outside for almost a year-and-a-half—until Ms. Jenkins’s current attorneys intervened. Pursuant to its policy, the City removed the warrant when an attorney entered an appearance, a benefit not afforded to unrepresented indigent people.
9

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 10 of 62 PageID #: 10
40. At the time she was jailed in 2012, Ms. Jenkins did not own a house, car, financial instruments, or any other significant assets. She did not have a bank account. She was living in extreme poverty.
41. The weeks that Ms. Jenkins spent in the City jail in 2012 were among the worst in her life. The jail was extremely cold as the temperatures dropped outside, and inmates were allowed only one thin blanket. The City’s jail guards refused to give women a second blanket even though numerous women were begging for blankets and even though the jail had extra blankets.
42. The cell in which Ms. Jenkins stayed for weeks was a single overcrowded room with several bunks, a toilet, two tables, and a shower. For the duration of her stay, there were consistently about 15-16 women forced to stay in the small room, with several spread out on floor mats covering nearly the entire cell floor.
43. Two women were forced to sleep on top of each of the two eating tables in the room. Another woman slept next to the open toilet and another next to the shower.
44. The toilet and shower were not cleaned by the City. As a result, they reeked of excrement and mildew. The stench emanating from the shower was a constant fact of life for the women in the overcrowded cell. The shower was visibly strewn with black mold.
45. The women were never let outside. 46. The women were never given a toothbrush or toothpaste. 47. Never, in any of her many visits to the Jennings jail over the course of more than a decade, has Ms. Jenkins seen a woman brushing her teeth.
10

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 11 of 62 PageID #: 11

48. When a woman purchased her way out or was otherwise released, she would often

try to leave her blanket for other shivering women. As soon as Jennings City Jail guards discovered

an extra blanket, they would forcibly remove it from the remaining women.4

49. Jail guards pervasively taunted the women. The guards told the women that it

would “be a while” before they would be let free. Guards joked to the women that a man had been

sitting in the jail for more than a month on a $1 release amount that the City refused to lower.

50. Guards also threatened to say bad things to the City judge about the behavior of the

women and told the women that the judge would not let the women out as a result.

51. The jail conditions experienced by Ms. Jenkins are materially the same as the

conditions described throughout this Complaint and to those described by numerous other

witnesses and victims of the City’s policies and practices over a consistent period of many years.

52. Ms. Jenkins still owes significant debts to the City for unpaid fines and costs. She

is frightened that the City will again jail her indefinitely until she and her family can pay enough

to secure her release.5

ii.

Edward Brown

53. Edward Brown is a 62-year-old resident of Jennings.

54. Mr. Brown is homeless. Mr. Brown has struggled in the past several months to find

a place to stay every night after the cold weather made it impossible for him to return to the house

at which he had been squatting without heat or running water. He suffers from serious back and

lung illnesses and depends on Social Security Disability benefits and food stamps for his survival.

4 On one occasion, Ms. Jenkins witnessed jail guards hold ammonia to the face of a woman who has passed out on the floor, burning the skin off of the woman’s nose and lips. 5 Ms. Jenkins has also been kept in custody for old unpaid fines and costs because she could not afford to pay for her release in the City of Florissant.
11

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 12 of 62 PageID #: 12
55. Mr. Brown has received numerous tickets from the City of Jennings over the past several years for various offenses, including supposed violations of home occupancy regulations (including allegedly not cutting his grass), allowing his girlfriend to sleep over at his house without listing her on an occupancy permit, inspections, ordinances regarding his pet dog, and trespassing at his own home.
56. At the end of 2010, Mr. Brown was jailed by the City and told by City employees that he would not be released from jail unless he paid several hundred dollars. He remained in the Jennings jail for nearly two weeks until jail staff reduced the release amount to approximately $100. He was not appointed an attorney. When he was released from Jennings jail, he was sent to jail in the City of Pine Lawn to be held for unpaid tickets in that city.
57. In April 2011, Mr. Brown was again jailed by Jennings and told that he would not be released from jail unless he paid several hundred dollars. Jail officials brought Mr. Brown to court each Tuesday, where the judge would ask if he had money for the City. Each week, Mr. Brown told the court that he did not have any money. Each week, the judge then told Mr. Brown that he had better bring “my money” down to the City clerk.6 Mr. Brown was not appointed a lawyer and no inquiry was made into his indigence. Every night, he wondered when he would be allowed to leave.
58. Mr. Brown languished in the Jennings jail for nearly a month before the City allowed him to leave for free in late May 2011. When Jennings released him from its custody, the City transferred Mr. Brown to the custody of the City of Pine Lawn because Mr. Brown owed
6 This phrasing of bringing “my money” down to the City has been routinely used for years by the City judge. On at least two occasions, when Mr. Brown appeared in court for a hearing when he was not in custody, the judge ordered him to go away and bring “my money” back down to the court by 9:00 p.m. that night.
12

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 13 of 62 PageID #: 13
debts from old tickets to the City of Pine Lawn. Mr. Brown spent another extended period in jail in Pine Lawn because he could not afford to buy his release.
59. Mr. Brown was arrested again in September 2011 and taken to the Jennings jail. He was again told that he could buy his freedom for money. This time it was $200. Because he did not have $200, Mr. Brown languished in the City jail for 26 days before jail staff decided to let him out for free. Again, he was not provided an attorney to help him understand what was happening to him and to represent him, and no inquiry was made into his ability to pay. Even though he spent 26 days in jail because of his poverty before the City of Jennings arbitrarily released him, Mr. Brown was not yet a free man. The City again sent him to Pine Lawn, where he again languished in jail because he was too poor to buy his freedom.
60. Mr. Brown was jailed again by the City in February 2012 for several days until the release amount was lowered by jail staff to approximately $100, and a concerned friend was able to buy his release. Mr. Brown was not brought to court.
61. In October 2012, Mr. Brown was arrested and taken again to the Jennings jail. He was told that his release amount this time was approximately $200 and that he would not be let out of jail unless he paid that amount. Mr. Brown was held in jail for several days until the following Tuesday when he was brought to court. Once again, the City of Jennings was represented by the City prosecutor, but Mr. Brown was not provided an attorney. Pursuant to City policy, no inquiry was made into his ability to pay. The court told Mr. Brown that he would not be released unless he paid his $200. Mr. Brown was returned to the jail. The following Tuesday, Mr. Brown was brought again to the City court. This time, Mr. Brown was told that his release amount had been lowered to $100. Mr. Brown could not pay that amount and was returned to the jail.
13

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 14 of 62 PageID #: 14
62. The following Tuesday, Mr. Brown was brought again to the City court. Mr. Brown begged the judge to let him go because he could not afford to pay. Mr. Brown was allowed to be released for free. When Mr. Brown was released, the City held him in custody until the City of Pine Lawn picked him up, and he again languished in the Pine Lawn jail for several days because he could not pay the release amount of $300 required by Pine Lawn.
63. In early December 2013, Mr. Brown was again arrested and brought to the Jennings jail because he had unpaid tickets. He was told that he would not be released unless he paid $200. After approximately four days, Mr. Brown was told that his release amount had been lowered to $100. On December 14, 2013, a friend was able to obtain $100 to get Mr. Brown out of jail. Mr. Brown never saw a judge and was not taken to court during his detention.
64. Mr. Brown was arrested and taken to the Jennings jail again in May 2014 because he had unpaid costs and fines from old tickets. Mr. Brown was again told that he would not be released unless he paid $200. Mr. Brown was then so sick and that he was released from Jennings custody for free after two days because, he was told, the jail did not want to deal with his serious medical problems.
65. Mr. Brown was arrested and brought to the Jennings jail again in late July 2014. He was told that he would not be released unless he paid several hundred dollars. After two days of telling jail staff that he could not pay and that he needed to go to the hospital, Mr. Brown convinced jail staff to drop his release amount to $200. Mr. Brown gained access to his SSI benefits card and paid the $200 to be released.
66. On several of his jailings, Mr. Brown depended on his concerned home health care worker to come and pay for his release.
14

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 15 of 62 PageID #: 15
67. During his many times in the Jennings jail, Mr. Brown endured dangerous and humiliating conditions.
68. Mr. Brown endured materially the same conditions as described elsewhere in this Complaint. For example, Mr. Brown was forced to stay in overcrowded cells with an unbearable stench from uncleaned excrement, mildew, and mold that the City refused to clean.
69. During all of his time in the jail, Mr. Brown was only offered a shower on one occasion. He was never given a toothbrush or toothpaste.
70. Mr. Brown cannot eat certain foods, such as cheese and milk. However, jail guards made no effort to accommodate his dietary restrictions, and he therefore lost a significant amount of weight and was in significant pain the entire time.
71. Mr. Brown was also refused access to prescription medicine and to a machine that he needs to assist him with breathing as a result of a lung disease. On one occasion, Mr. Brown, who is homeless, arrived at the jail in severe pain due to his feet being nearly frozen inside his steel toed shoes. Although a paramedic came to the jail and recommended that Mr. Brown be taken to a hospital, the jail staff refused to allow him to go to the hospital. Because of the lack of adequate medical attention to his feet, Mr. Brown now suffers from chronic pain in his feet.
72. Mr. Brown has observed brutal and violent behavior by Jennings jail guards. For example, Mr. Brown has observed guards mace people and strap them to chairs as punishment.
73. Jennings guards also routinely taunted Mr. Brown and other inmates. Guards told Mr. Brown that he was not going to get his medication and that he would stay in jail until he paid them. Guards routinely mocked inmates by saying that they would be held in jail until they paid.
74. Jail guards told hungry inmates that they would be given extra food rations and time outside the cell if they agreed to perform janitorial labor.
15

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 16 of 62 PageID #: 16
75. Mr. Brown also observed courtroom staff and the City judge tell people routinely that they would be put in jail if they showed up to court without money on repeated occasions.
76. Although Mr. Brown was indigent, he was never appointed an attorney by the City, and the City made no meaningful inquiry into his ability to pay.
77. Mr. Brown still owes significant debts to the City for unpaid fines and costs. He is frightened that the City will again jail him indefinitely until he can pay enough to secure his release.
iii. Keilee Fant 78. Keilee Fant is a 37-year-old woman. She works as a certified nurse’s assistant and has been trying to support herself and her children by doing similar work for nearly 20 years. In the past 19 years, she has been jailed by the City of Jennings at least seven times. 79. In the past 16 months, Ms. Fant has been jailed by the City of Jennings for unpaid debt on at least four occasions. On the first of these four occasions, she was arrested for an unpaid ticket warrant while taking her children to school in October 2013.7 When she arrived at the Jennings jail, she was told by jail staff that she would be kept in jail indefinitely unless she paid $300. She informed jail staff that she could not afford to pay $300. After three days in jail, the jail staff reduced her release amount and let her go for free from the custody of the City of Jennings. 80. Ms. Fant’s supposed “release” from the City’s custody was just the beginning of a Kafkaesque journey through the debtors’ prison network of Saint Louis County—a lawless and labyrinthine scheme of dungeon-like municipal facilities and perpetual debt. Every year, thousands of Saint Louis County residents undergo a similar journey, including the Plaintiffs in this case.
7As is the case for thousands of people, many of Ms. Fant’s traffic tickets have resulted from her inability to afford to pay her other tickets, which has prevented her from getting her driver’s license back because of a state and municipal government policy and practice of invalidating licenses for those who cannot afford to pay old tickets.
16

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 17 of 62 PageID #: 17
81. After Ms. Fant’s “release” from Jennings custody, the City of Jennings kept Ms. Fant in its jail until her family could pay the several hundred dollars required for release by the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors. Bellefontaine Neighbors is so small that it does not have its own jail. Instead, it paid the City of Jennings to confine its inmate debtors in the Jennings jail. After several days, Jennings jail staff told Ms. Fant that Bellefontaine Neighbors had reduced her release amount. Jail officers allow inmates to use a free phone in an office if they say that they will be able to get cash by calling friends or family; otherwise they are not permitted to use the free phone. Ms. Fant called her family to inform them of the reduced amount, and they were able to raise the money to buy her release. After paying the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors, Ms. Fant was “released” but kept in the Jennings jail for three more days, supposedly in the “custody” of Velda City. Velda City eventually informed Jennings officials that it declined to pick her up. Ms. Fant was then transported to the custody of Saint Louis County, where she was kept for three days before being “released” from County custody. Although Ms. Fant was “released” from the custody of Saint Louis County, she was not set free. Ms. Fant languished eight more days in the County jail because she could not afford the release amounts for unpaid tickets in two other cities too small to have their own jail: the City of Normandy and the City of Beverly Hills.
82. While confined in the Saint Louis County facility on behalf of these tiny towns, jail officials coerced inmates who could not afford to pay for phone calls or food by offering free phone calls to family members and candy in exchange for doing the jail laundry without monetary compensation.
83. After eight days, she was taken to court in the City of Maryland Heights, where the judge “released” her for free. Nonetheless, Ms. Fant was still not free. Instead, she was transported
17

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 18 of 62 PageID #: 18
to Ferguson. Ferguson officials told her that she would be held indefinitely unless she paid over $1,000. After three days, they let her out for free.
84. Ms. Fant was again arrested and brought to the Jennings jail in January 2014. After she could not afford to pay the release amount of several hundred dollars, she was told by jail staff that her release amount had been reduced to $100. A jail guard told her that since they had released her for free the previous time, he did not want to do that again. After six days, her family paid $100, and she was again released to the custody of another municipality. Once again, she was not brought to court and not provided a lawyer.
85. After her “release,” she was again kept in the Jennings jail and shifted to the custody of the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors and Velda City. She was then taken to Saint Louis County. From the County jail, she was then transported to Maryland Heights for several days, and then again to Ferguson. Ferguson jail staff told her that her release amount was approximately $1,400. They told her that she would be held indefinitely until she paid it.
86. Demoralized, desperate, and weary of being transferred from jail to jail, Ms. Fant asked jail staff if they would accept $1,000, which she thought her family could raise from friends and relatives. The jail officer told her that he wanted to call the Chief of Police to ask if that amount was sufficient. The Chief of Police approved her release if her family could bring $1,000, and her family came to Ferguson and bought her release from the Ferguson jail. She was released from the Ferguson jail immediately after her family paid $1,000.
87. Ms. Fant was again arrested and brought to the Jennings jail in April 2014. She could not afford to pay the release amount of several hundred dollars that jail officials told her would be required for her to get out. After one day in jail, jail officials reduced her release amount to $100, and her family bought her release.
18

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 19 of 62 PageID #: 19
88. Ms. Fant was again arrested and brought to the Jennings jail in June 2014. She could not afford to pay the several hundred dollars that jail officials told her was required for her release. On her third day in jail, her release amount was reduced to $100, and her family bought her release. When she was released from the custody of Jennings, jail officials informed her that she was then being held in the Jennings jail by Bellefontaine Neighbors unless she paid $100. She informed officials that she could not afford the $100. After three days, Jennings jail officials let her out of the custody of Bellefontaine Neighbors for free. Jennings jail officials then told her that she was in the custody of Velda City and that her release amount was $300. She informed City officials that she could still not pay $300, and they informed her that the least that they would take was $100. After three more days in custody, she was transported to Saint Louis County, where she was eventually released, after three more days, to the custody of Maryland Heights. The judge in Maryland Heights then told Ms. Fant that if she did not bring the money that she owed to the next court appearance, he would jail her. Maryland Heights attempted to transport her to Ferguson, but Ferguson responded that it was remodeling its police department and that it declined to take her. She was released for free.
89. On one occasion, afraid of being jailed again, Ms. Fant called the Jennings clerk and said that she could pay $90 instead of the $100 that she owed for her monthly payment. She told the clerk that she could get the other $10 after she got paid by her job. The clerk told her that Jennings would not accept $90 and that she had better make the full $100 payment.
90. During these repeated and indefinite jailings, Ms. Fant was fired from several jobs because of absences. She was indigent and depending on food stamps to supplement her income to feed her children.
19

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 20 of 62 PageID #: 20
91. Similar experiences happened to Ms. Fant more than a dozen times in the past two decades, including one occasion in which she was held in jail by the City of Ferguson for nearly 50 days without a toothbrush, toothpaste, shower, soap, or change of clothes for unpaid traffic tickets because she could not afford to buy her release.
92. Although Ms. Fant was indigent and struggling to meet the basic necessities of life for herself and her children, she was never appointed an attorney by the City, and the City made no meaningful inquiry into her ability to pay. Ms. Fant was not brought to the courtroom and was instead told by jail staff that she would not get to go home because she had to either pay for her release or wait until they decided to release her for free.8
93. Ms. Fant has endured materially the same inhumane and unsanitary Jennings jail conditions described in this Complaint. In addition to enduring overcrowding with other inmate debtors, Ms. Fant was forced to languish in the Jennings jail without basic hygiene (for example, she was told that she would not be given feminine products for menstruation), medical care, and exercise.9
94. When women held for non-payment complained to jail staff about the inadequate food rations, they were given gloves and cleaning supplies and told that they would be given extra food if they agreed to clean the jail without monetary compensation.
95. Ms. Fant also observed rampant taunting and humiliation perpetrated by Jennings jail guards. Jail staff routinely told female inmates that they were being too loud and that they smelled bad. The staff joked that the women would not be released until the guards “let them.”
8 Jail staff informed inmates routinely that it was City policy not to bring traffic violators to court. Instead, they told inmates held on unpaid tickets that they would be held until they paid or until they decided to let them out for free. 9 On one occasion, jail staff agreed to go to the store to buy feminine products for the women, but the male officer returned with panty liners instead of tampons. Jail staff told the women that they would have to use the panty liners instead and refused to go back to the store.
20

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 21 of 62 PageID #: 21

96. Ms. Fant still owes significant debts to the City for unpaid fines and costs. She is

frightened that the City will again jail her indefinitely until she and her family can pay enough to

secure her release.

iv.

Byeon Wells

97. Byeon Wells is a 34-year-old man.

98. Mr. Wells has received various traffic citations and other violations in the City of

Jennings over the past five years.

99. On February 9, 2013, Mr. Wells was arrested and taken to the Jennings jail. When

Mr. Wells got to the Jennings jail, he was told that he would be released if he paid over $1,000.

Mr. Wells and his wife were homeless at the time, and they could not afford to pay that amount of

money. Mr. Wells did not own any significant assets, and he was impoverished and struggling to

survive.

100. Mr. Wells was brought to court the following Tuesday. He was unrepresented by

an attorney, but the City of Jennings was represented by an experienced prosecutor. The judge

asked Mr. Wells if he could pay for his release. Mr. Wells told the judge that he could not afford

to pay. The judge sent him back to jail and told him: “see you next week.”

101. The following Tuesday, the judge lowered the release amount to $500 and asked if

Mr. Wells could pay it. Mr. Wells again told the court that he was too poor. The judge again told

Mr. Wells: “see you next week.”

102. For the next three weeks, Mr. Wells was brought to court and told that he would

not be released unless he paid $500. However, Mr. Wells was informed at the jail that most of the

inmate debtors would have their release amounts lowered to $100, and his release amount was

lowered to $100 on March 12. Mr. Wells could still not afford that amount.

21

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 22 of 62 PageID #: 22
103. After another day—and after over a month in the Jennings jail since his arrest— Mr. Wells told his family that he could leave the Jennings jail if he paid his jailors $100. His sister came up with $100, and he was released immediately.
104. When Mr. Wells was released, he was given a new court date and told to return. Jennings released Mr. Wells to state custody, where he remained for a little more than a year because of a parole warrant on a case having nothing to do with Jennings. Thus, at the time of his next Jennings court date, Mr. Wells was incarcerated by the State of Missouri. While he was in state custody, Mr. Wells sent a letter to Jennings explaining that he could not make his court date because he was in state custody.
105. Nevertheless, after his release from state custody in early July 2014, Mr. Wells was arrested during a traffic stop in which he was a passenger in a vehicle driven by someone else. Though he was a mere passenger, officers demanded his ID, and he was arrested because of his unpaid debt and failure to appear in Jennings while in state custody. Mr. Wells reminded Jennings officials that he had sent them a letter and had not failed to appear because he had been in prison, and jail staff confirmed to Mr. Wells that they had his letter on record.
106. But Jennings nonetheless kept Mr. Wells in jail. Jail guards told Mr. Wells that he would not be released unless he paid $1,000 to the City of Jennings.
107. Mr. Wells languished in jail and was not taken to court for a week-and-a-half. When he got to court, he told the judge that he had missed the court date because he had been in prison and that he had sent the City a letter explaining his absence. The judge refused to reduce the release amount.
108. Mr. Wells’s parole officer eventually came to Jennings to show Jennings the prison release paperwork to demonstrate that Mr. Wells had been locked up at the time of his 2013 court
22

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 23 of 62 PageID #: 23
appearance. After his parole officer intervened, Jennings jail staff reduced Mr. Wells’s release amount to $200.
109. After a couple of weeks in the Jennings jail, Mr. Wells’s family was able to raise the money and, upon payment, the City released Mr. Wells immediately to the custody of another City to whom he owed ticket debts.
110. Although Mr. Wells was indigent, he was never appointed an attorney by the City, and the City never made any meaningful inquiry into his ability to pay. The City was represented by an experienced prosecutor at Mr. Wells’s court appearances.
111. While locked for weeks in the Jennings jail, Mr. Wells endured conditions that were shocking and unlawful in materially the same way as described in this Complaint.10
112. Jennings jail staff routinely taunted people because they could not afford to get out. Jail guards told inmates that if they didn’t like the conditions, they could always buy their way out.
113. Mr. Wells was denied access for the entire duration of each jailing to a toothbrush or toothpaste. Like the other Plaintiffs, Mr. Wells languished in jail for weeks without being able to purge from his mouth the stench and taste of decaying teeth and gums.
114. Mr. Wells was denied a pillow and was given only one small blanket. 115. Mr. Wells was forced to sleep near a toilet that the City did not clean. The entire cell reeked of the stench of feces and mildew. The cell’s shower was overgrown with mold and slimy debris, and the jail staff did not even permit Mr. Wells to wash his underwear 116. The cell walls were covered in mucus and blood. 117. Mr. Wells still owes significant debts to the City for unpaid fines and costs. He is frightened that the City will again jail him indefinitely.
10 Mr. Wells was also locked up in the Jennings jail for unpaid traffic tickets on several other occasions for a few days each time between 2010 and 2013.
23

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 24 of 62 PageID #: 24

118. Mr. Wells has also been kept in custody for old debts because he could not afford

to buy his release in the City of Dellwood and Saint Louis City, who would take custody of him

either before or after he was released from Jennings.

v.

Meldon Moffit

119. Meldon Moffit is a 42-year-old man.

120. In the summer of 2013, Mr. Moffit was pulled over and informed that his driver’s

license had been suspended. When he appeared in court, he was told that the charges would be

dropped if he obtained the proper paperwork from the DMV. Mr. Moffit went to the DMV and

obtained the proper documentation that his license had been reinstated.

121. When Mr. Moffit appeared again in court, the judge gave him a $469 fine and put

him on a “payment docket” because he could not afford to pay the ticket in full.

122. Mr. Moffit was indigent and not able to make payments on the ticket. The City did

not appoint a lawyer for him.

123. In the courtroom, Mr. Moffit observed people being asked if they had money and

saying no. Then, he observed the judge ordering them to have a seat and telling them to find a

way to come up with the money. He observed people being jailed when they could not pay.

124. In May 2014, Mr. Moffit was arrested and taken to the Jennings jail. When he

arrived, he was told that he would be held in jail until he paid slightly more than $100.

125. Mr. Moffit was indigent and unemployed at the time, and he languished in the

Jennings jail for five days until his niece was able to pay $110 for his release.

126. In July 2014, Mr. Moffit was pulled over for allegedly “impeding the flow of

traffic.” He was arrested and again brought to Jennings and locked in the Jennings jail. He was

24

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 25 of 62 PageID #: 25
told by jail staff that he would not be released until he paid $122 toward his old debts. After several days, his niece, his mother, and his sister were able to raise $122 to pay for his release.
127. Mr. Moffit did not appear before a judge on either occasion. Rather, he was informed both times by officers and jail guards that he would be held indefinitely until he paid enough money.
128. While in the Jennings jail, Mr. Moffit experienced materially the same jail conditions described in this Complaint.
129. Mr. Moffit was permitted to shower one time per week, although the water in the shower was clogged by slimy debris and reeked of pungent stenches, which appeared to be feces and mold.
130. Mr. Moffit was denied a toothbrush, toothpaste, a change of underwear, and extra blankets for the duration of his stay. He was given only one thin blanket with holes, and guards refused the repeated requests of Mr. Moffit and other inmates for extra blankets to deal with the cold temperatures in the cell.
131. The jail cell was so overcrowded with men who could not raise sufficient money to buy their release that the inmates were forced to sleep on mats on the floor. The mats and blankets were often not cleaned when inmates left and before they were given to new inmates.
132. Jennings jail guards also repeatedly taunted the inmates. Each day, inmates asked guards if their release amounts had been lowered. Each day, Mr. Moffit heard guards tell inmates that the guards would be going home that day in a nice car while the inmates had to stay in the jail because they could not pay.
133. Some inmates were coerced into cleaning parts of the jail for extra food rations.
25

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 26 of 62 PageID #: 26
134. Mr. Moffit lives in constant fear that he will again be arrested because he cannot afford to pay the money owed from his tickets.
135. Although Mr. Moffit was indigent, the City never appointed an attorney to represent him. The City never made any meaningful inquiry into his ability to pay
vi. Allison Nelson 136. Allison Nelson is a 23-year-old woman. She now works at a clothing store earning approximately the minimum wage. 137. Ms. Nelson has been jailed repeatedly by the City of Jennings since she was a teenager because she has not been able to pay fines and costs from traffic tickets. On each occasion, Ms. Nelson has been kept in jail, even though she was indigent, because she could not afford a sum of money set by the City. 138. In 2011, Ms. Nelson received traffic tickets in the City of Jennings. She appeared in court unrepresented. Ms. Nelson pled guilty to the traffic tickets and was put on a payment plan to pay $100 per month because she could not afford to pay the total cost of her tickets. 139. Later in 2011, Ms. Nelson received a letter from the City stating that she had missed a payment and that there was a warrant out for her arrest. She called the City clerk and said that she was frightened because she did not want to go to jail. The City clerk told her that the City would remove the warrant if she paid her fines and costs in full. She informed the clerk that she could not afford that much money, and the clerk told her that there was no other way for her to remove the warrant and get a court date unless she hired an attorney. If she hired an attorney and the attorney entered an appearance, then, according to the City clerk, her warrants would be removed and she would be given a new court date. Ms. Nelson was too poor to hire an attorney.
26

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 27 of 62 PageID #: 27
140. The teenage Ms. Nelson was arrested in September 2011 while wearing a nightgown in her own yard and taken to the Jennings jail for a day until her mother paid for her release.
141. In July 2012, Ms. Nelson was a passenger in a car when she was arrested for missing debt payments and taken to the Jennings jail. She was told that she would not be released unless she paid $160. She was kept in jail for a day until her family was able to pay the City $160.
142. In January 2013, Ms. Nelson was again arrested and taken to the Jennings jail. Staff told Ms. Nelson’s family that Ms. Nelson would not be released unless they paid $1,000. Ms. Nelson could not pay $1,000. After a night of frantically borrowing money, Ms. Nelson’s family came up with $1,000 and paid for her release from the jail.
143. In November 2013, Ms. Nelson was again arrested because of non-payment. When she was brought to the Jennings jail, she was told that she would not be released unless she paid $1,000. She informed the jail staff that she could not afford to pay. After four days, the jail staff informed her that her release amount would be lowered to $100. A jail guard called out the names of a number of female inmates and told them that, because it was Thanksgiving, he would allow them to be released if they could come up with $100. Her parents came to the jail and paid $100, and she was released immediately on Thanksgiving Day.11
144. While in the Jennings jail, Ms. Nelson was surrounded by other women who were there because they could not afford to pay the amount that Jennings required for their release. For example, during her most recent incarceration, she met a woman who had been in the jail for several weeks because she could not afford a $100 payment.
11 Ms. Nelson was taken first to the City of Florissant, who kept her in custody until her parents paid $200. After she bought out of custody in Jennings, she was taken to Ferguson.
27

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 28 of 62 PageID #: 28
145. Ms. Nelson endured materially the same deplorable jail conditions as the other Plaintiffs.
146. Although Ms. Nelson did not own any significant assets and was indigent, no meaningful inquiry into her indigence was ever made by the City of Jennings, and the City never appointed an attorney to represent her.
147. Like numerous other witnesses, Ms. Nelson routinely observed City officials threaten to jail or keep in jail people in the courtroom if they did not make sufficient monetary payments to the City of Jennings. She saw people jailed in the courtroom for repeated nonpayments.
148. Ms. Nelson also observed the City policy of courtroom guards telling anyone who showed up without money that City employees would run their names for warrants in other cities but informing people that they would not do so if the person brought money that night to pay Jennings. Those who made payments did not have their names run.
149. The threat of jail and the cycle of increasing debts to the City of Jennings has been a constant fact of daily life for Ms. Nelson since she was a teenager. She has been afraid every day simply to leave her own home or to get into a car as a passenger. Ms. Nelson’s dream for years has been to join the Navy. After passing the relevant tests as a teenager, she was told by her recruiter that she could not join until she clears up all of her unpaid traffic warrants and tickets, which she has not been able to afford to do.12
12 Military recruiters routinely refuse to accept applicants with traffic warrants for their arrest. ArchCity Defenders currently represents five clients who desire to enlist in the military but cannot do so as a result of warrants being issued for their arrest as a result of unpaid debts in municipal court.
28

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 29 of 62 PageID #: 29
150. Ms. Nelson has also been kept in custody for old traffic ticket debts because she could not afford to pay her way out in the City of Chesterfield, the City of Pagedale, the City of Florissant, the City of Country Club Hills, and the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors.
vii. Herbert Nelson Jr. 151. Herbert Nelson Jr. is 26 years old. Over the past seven years, the City of Jennings has kept him in jail because he was too poor to make monetary payments at least six times. 152. Mr. Nelson was arrested and brought to the Jennings jail for unpaid fines and costs in 2008 and again in 2009. Each time, he was told that he would not be released unless he paid a significant amount of money based on the total amount that he supposedly owed to the City. 153. Mr. Nelson was arrested again for non-payment in April 2011. When he was brought to the Jennings jail, he was told that he would be held indefinitely unless he paid approximately $2,000 based on his unpaid debts. He informed jail staff that he could not afford to pay that much money. Each day that he was in jail, his release amount was lowered. On the third day, the amount required for his release was lowered to $300, and he was released after his mother borrowed money to buy him out of jail. 154. Mr. Nelson was arrested again in October 2013 and brought to the Jennings jail. Again, he was told by Jennings jail staff that he would not be released unless he paid approximately $2,000. Again his release amount was incrementally lowered. This time, on the fourth day, the sum was reduced to $200, and his mother again borrowed the money to buy his release. 155. Mr. Nelson was arrested again in February 2014 and brought to the Jennings jail. Again, he was told by jail staff that he would be held in jail until he paid approximately $2,000. Again his release amount was incrementally lowered as he sat in jail. This time, on the fifth day, he was released for free.
29

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 30 of 62 PageID #: 30
156. Mr. Nelson was arrested again in September 2014. Again, he was told by jail staff that he would be kept in jail unless he paid $2,000. Again his release amount was incrementally lowered. This time, on the third day, it was reduced to $300, and his mother again borrowed the money to buy him out, including borrowing money from his co-workers.
157. Mr. Nelson endured and witnessed materially the same deplorable jail conditions described in this Complaint. For example, he was forced to remain in a filthy, overcrowded cell with other inmate debtors that reeked of excrement. He and the other inmates were not given any toothbrush, toothpaste, hand-soap, showers, or a change of underwear. He has never been offered a shower during any of his time in the Jennings jail, although inmates are forced to sleep next to the visibly moldy shower in the shared cell. The cells were so overcrowded during his multiple periods of incarceration that men were forced to sleep on the floor next to the open, uncleaned toilet. The walls were covered with dried food, mucus, and blood. The ceilings were covered with dried, congealed paper towels that previous inmates had thrown to the ceiling in an effort to cover the cold vents.
158. The faucet was connected to the top of the toilet and was rusted over. Inmates were afraid to drink from it. Many inmates suffered from dehydration because they were only given one bottle of water per day.
159. Some inmates were so desperate to supplement their food and water and to exit the cell that they agreed to perform various janitorial services.
160. During one of his periods in the Jennings jail, Mr. Nelson developed two irritated areas on his leg that became infected and turned into boils the size of eggs. This leg injury has subsequently persisted in various iterations for approximately two years. On a later period of incarceration in the Jennings jail, his boils flared and popped, and he was in excruciating pain.
30

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 31 of 62 PageID #: 31
The Jennings jail staff refused to treat him. Staff refused to give him antibiotics, painkillers, or a doctor, even though his pants filled with blood and puss. He found it difficult even to sit because of the infection.
161. Finally, after his transfer to another facility, a nurse in the Justice Center in Saint Louis City examined him and told him that the infection was related to the jail conditions because his skin had become extremely dirty by sitting in the uncleaned Jennings jail without a shower or soap. The nurse told him that she was amazed at the large size of the boils. She said that she believed it was turning into staph infection, although Mr. Nelson was never separated from the other inmates while he had been in Jennings.
162. The Jennings guards repeatedly humiliated the inmates by taunting them. Several guards laughed at Mr. Nelson after he complained and showed them his boils.
163. Some guards told inmates that they “couldn’t wait” for them to “act up” so that they could “tase” them.
164. The guards would often crack jokes about the inmates not being able to afford to get out and made fun of inmates who were repeatedly arrested for unpaid debts. The guards also told inmates that they would retaliate against them if they asked too many questions about their release amounts. A culture of mockery, humiliation, and intimidation pervaded all of Mr. Nelson’s trips to the Jennings jail.
165. Once every morning, a jail employee would announce to inmates whether or not their release amounts would be lowered.
166. Mr. Nelson was indigent for the entire duration of his jailings by the City of Jennings. The City never brought Mr. Nelson to court or offered any formal inquiry into his indigence or his inability to pay.
31

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 32 of 62 PageID #: 32
167. Mr. Nelson now works as a painter and is dedicated to supporting his five-year-old son. Because of his recent jailings by Jennings—including one in which he was in uniform on his way to an important painting job—he has lost a number of jobs and finds it difficult to be re-hired because painting contractors know that he could be jailed on the way to any painting job. On one occasion, a co-worker had to fill in for Mr. Nelson and then use the money earned from the job to pay for Mr. Nelson’s release from the Jennings jail. The scheme described above has prevented Mr. Nelson from growing his own painting business because he cannot obtain his driver’s license, a necessity for a profession that requires him to travel to and from job sites daily with his tools.
168. On many occasions, Mr. Nelson observed people jailed for non-payment without being represented by a lawyer despite their protestations that they were too poor to pay.
169. Mr. Nelson has also been held in jail because of his inability to make payments in the City of Ferguson, the City of Florissant, Saint Louis County, and the City of Maryland Heights.
170. During Mr. Nelson’s most recent incarceration, he finally broke down and cried after he missed an important painting job. The cycle of jail and debt has prevented him from getting on his feet and living any kind of meaningful life with his son. Because of his repeated jailings, it has been difficult for him to maintain steady employment and to meet the basic necessities of life for his family.
viii. Tonya DeBerry 171. Tonya DeBerry is a 52-year-old woman. Over the past 13 years, she has been jailed repeatedly by the City of Jennings because of unpaid court fines and costs. Over that time period, she has paid thousands of dollars to Jennings for fines, costs, surcharges, and added fees. 172. Ms. DeBerry was arrested and jailed by Jennings in April 2011 for non-payment. When she arrived at the Jennings jail, she was told that she would not be released unless she paid
32

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 33 of 62 PageID #: 33
$300 for the City of Ferguson. When her family borrowed money and took it to Ferguson, the Jennings jail agreed to release her.
173. On one occasion in 2012, Ms. DeBerry arrived late to the Jennings court while proceedings were going on. She had arrived to make her monthly $100 payment. She was told that the doors to the public proceedings were locked because the court was too crowded, and officers refused to let her enter to make her payment.13 The court officer told her to call the Jennings clerk the next day. Ms. DeBerry called the next day, and the City clerk told her that the City would not accept payment because she was a day late. The City told her that there was now a warrant out for her arrest because she had not paid the previous evening. She was told that she now had to pay a “bond” of $400. When Ms. DeBerry asked what that meant, the City clerk explained that she would be arrested if she did not pay $400 and that her debts had increased because, pursuant to City policy, a warrant fee had been added to her costs. In order to remove the warrant and avoid arrest, she had to pay $400. Ms. DeBerry could not afford to pay $400 to remove the warrant.
174. In September 2012, Ms. DeBerry was again arrested and held in the Jennings jail because of her non-payment. Jail staff threatened her with indefinite incarceration unless she paid approximately $700. It took her family two days to borrow and raise the $700 necessary to pay for her release.
175. In January 2014, Ms. DeBerry was again arrested because of her non-payment. When she was brought to the jail, she was told that she would not be released unless she paid
13 As discussed below, Jennings routinely locks the doors to the courthouse while court is in session in flagrant violation of the United States and Missouri Constitutions. After lawyers for ArchCity Defenders and Saint Louis University School of Law Clinics called this widespread practice to the attention of presiding Circuit Judge Maura McShane, she issued a letter to all municipal courts requiring them to open the courts to the public. In spite of this letter, the practice persists in many courts.
33

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 34 of 62 PageID #: 34
approximately $2,400 because that was the amount of her total debt to the City from old fines and costs. She was then told that she would be released for $1,400. She stated that she was poor and that she could not afford to pay anywhere near that amount. After two nights in jail, the City reduced her release amount to $100, and her family came to the jail and bought her release.
176. For years, Ms. DeBerry has been afraid to leave her own home for fear that she would be arrested on warrants for non-payment and held for days or weeks until someone could borrow enough money to free her. Ms. DeBerry is disabled and depends on federal disability support and food stamps to survive.
177. The City of Jennings also arrested and kept in its jail for indefinite periods both of her teenage children because they could not afford to pay old traffic tickets. Ms. DeBerry was often forced to choose between raising money to get her children released from the Jennings jail or raising money to make her own debt payments to the City.
178. As with the other Plaintiffs, the threat of being jailed for non-payment by Jennings has been a constant fact of everyday life for Ms. DeBerry and her family for years. It affects every decision to leave their home every day, including going to the grocery store or going to church.
179. For the past several years, Ms. DeBerry has gone to the Jennings municipal complex every month to make payments on her traffic ticket debts. Like numerous other witnesses, Ms. DeBerry routinely observed City officials threaten to jail or keep in jail people in the courtroom if they did not make monetary payments to the City of Jennings. She observed the City jail people for repeated non-payments and observed the City jail people who came without money if they had warrants in other municipalities.
180. A courthouse officer bragged to her on one occasion that the previous month they had locked up 63 people for non-payment at court. Guards warned people if they were not paying
34

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 35 of 62 PageID #: 35
that night they better leave if they had warrants in other places, because the City policy was to run the names of people who did not bring money through a warrant database.
181. Ms. DeBerry has paid many thousands of dollars to Jennings for ballooning costs, fines, surcharges, and fees.
182. During her time in the Jennings jail, Ms. DeBerry was forced to endure grotesque conditions similar to those endured by the other Plaintiffs described in this Complaint. For example, during Ms. DeBerry’s time in the Jennings jail, she was subjected to cells overcrowded with other women too poor to buy their release, the constant stench of refuse and excrement, the sight of mold and bugs everywhere, the lack of any toothbrush, toothpaste, or soap, cold temperatures without adequate covering, and the sound of male inmates being beaten.
183. The guards humiliated the women. They would tell the women to “shut up,” to quit bothering the guards, and that they would not be released if they could not come up with the money.
184. As with all of the other Plaintiffs, the City of Jennings never made any meaningful inquiry into Ms. DeBerry’s indigence prior to jailing her or keeping her in jail for non-payment. Nor did the City consider any alternatives to incarceration or provide her with an attorney.
185. Ms. DeBerry has also been kept in custody for debts from tickets because she could not afford to pay for her release in the City of Ferguson, Saint Louis City, and Saint Louis County.
B. The City’s Policies and Practices 186. The treatment of the Plaintiffs was caused by and is representative of the City’s policies and practices concerning collecting unpaid fines, fees, costs, and surcharges relating to traffic tickets and other minor offenses for at least the past five years.14
14 Unless otherwise stated in this Complaint, the policies, practices, and procedures of the City of Jennings described have been in existence for at least the past five years.
35

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 36 of 62 PageID #: 36
187. It is the policy and practice of the City of Jennings to use its municipal court and its jail as significant sources of revenue generation for the City. The money to be brought into the City through the municipal court is budgeted by the City in advance.15 As a result, the entire municipal government apparatus, including municipal court officials and City jailors, has a significant incentive to operate the court and the jail in a way that maximizes revenues, not justice.
188. Decisions regarding the operation of the court and the jail—including but not limited to the assessment of fines, fees, costs,16 and surcharges; the availability and conditions of payment plans; the setting of amounts required for release from jail; the issuance and withdrawal of arrest warrants; and the non-appointment of an attorney—are significantly influenced by and based on maximizing revenues collected rather than on legitimate penological considerations.
189. In 2014, the City of Jennings issued an average of more than 2.1 arrest warrants per household and almost 1.4 arrest warrants for every adult , mostly in cases involving unpaid debt for tickets.
190. Over the past five years, the City of Jennings, according to its public records, has earned more than $3.5 million dollars from its municipal court fines, fees, costs, and surcharges.17 The population of the City of Jennings, including children, is 14,700. An equivalent budgetary revenue stream from municipal court fees for the entire Saint Louis metropolitan region would be nearly $670,000,000.
i. Arbitrary and Indefinite Detention of the Indigent
15 The City uses the money collected through these procedures to help fund the City jail, to pay Municipal Court judicial salaries, to pay City Attorney’s Office salaries, and to fund other portions of the City budget. 16 Missouri Law requires costs to be waived for the indigent, see Mo. Code § 479.260, but the City ignores that law. 17 The City also uses its jail to earn significant additional revenue by renting its jail space to other neighboring municipalities and knowingly keeps in its jail people who cannot afford to make payments to the other municipalities.
36

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 37 of 62 PageID #: 37
191. As each of the Plaintiffs’ cases illustrates, the City of Jennings has adopted a policy and practice of arresting people when they owe unpaid debt from judgments on old traffic tickets and other minor offenses. When those arrestees are booked at the Jennings jail, they are told by jail staff that they can be released immediately, but only if they pay cash to the City of Jennings. If they cannot pay the City, they are told that they will be held in jail indefinitely.
192. The amount of cash that Jennings requires for release is based on the total debt owed by the person from their judgments in old traffic and other misdemeanor cases.
193. It is and has been the policy and practice of the City of Jennings to hold people in jail unless and until they or their families pay the City.
194. It is and has been the policy and practice of the City of Jennings to gradually and incrementally reduce the amount of money required to buy a person’s freedom. The reason for this policy is to generate as much money as possible. Some people’s families are able to borrow and raise significant money up front to buy the release of their loved one within hours or days. The longer a person stays in the Jennings jail, however, the more it costs the City and the more certain it is that the person’s family cannot raise enough money. Thus, the City’s policy and practice is to lower the amount periodically in the hope that the person can raise at least some money to buy his or her release. City jail staff also attempt to negotiate or bargain with the person or the person’s family concerning the amount of money that they are able to pay. In many cases, after significant jail time, the City will release the person for free if it is clear that the City cannot extract any money from the person during that jail stay.
195. Inmates find out about these incremental reductions by asking jail staff every morning what their new release amount is. Some days they are told that the release amount has remained the same, and other days they are told that it has been reduced. Inmates are then usually
37

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 38 of 62 PageID #: 38
given an opportunity to use the telephone to call family or friends who might be able to come up with enough money to pay for their release. The incremental reductions do not happen as the result of any formal adversarial process in which the inmate participates.
196. The City’s incremental reductions of the amount required for release are designed also to punish debtors for non-payment on the theory that time in jail will encourage impoverished people to pay in the future if they know that they will be jailed for non-payment. These threats result in people and families borrowing money at high rates of interest to release a loved one or taking money otherwise needed for food, diapers, clothing, and utilities and giving it to the City of Jennings instead. The result has been widespread hardship for the impoverished people of Jennings, whose local government has decided to make families choose between feeding hungry children and letting a loved one languish in jail.
197. These policies and practices have created a culture of fear among the City’s poorest residents, who are afraid even to appear at the payment window or in City court to explain their indigence because they know they will be jailed by the City without any meaningful process. The same fear motivates many very poor City residents to sacrifice expenditures on food, clothing, utilities, sanitary home repairs, and other basic necessities of life in order to scrape together money to pay traffic debt to the City.
198. From the perspective of City officials, these coercive threats are successful. They are successful because the threats have been crucial to pressuring family members—who have no legal obligation to pay any money to the City on behalf of indigent relatives or friends who owe money from old civil judgments—to come up with money in order to get their loved ones released from jail. They have also been crucial in getting low-income people to forgo basic necessities of
38

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 39 of 62 PageID #: 39
life in order to pay the City in an attempt to avoid jail. It is only through this illegal confinement and credible threats of confinement that the City is able to collect that additional money.
199. The basic scheme of the City of Jennings is to extort—through the threat of physical confinement—money from debtors who are otherwise unable to afford to pay both the basic necessities of life and their debts to the City. The City’s policies and practices have resulted in the community knowing that impoverished debtors will be arrested and held by the City for days or weeks unless and until they pay enough cash to the City. This scheme was designed to get impoverished people to pay onerous payment plans (for debts accumulated in cases in which they were unrepresented) that they cannot afford in order to avoid illegal jailing and, if they fail to meet their payment plan, to force impoverished people and their families to pay significant sums of money to secure a person’s release from jail.
200. When providing information to inmates, the City refers in practice to the amount of cash required for a person’s release at any given moment as the person’s “bond,” even though the money is applied toward old unpaid debts and is set, re-set, reduced, bargained, and eventually waived without any formal process or consideration of any of the lawful considerations related to Missouri’s statutory bail system. Nor is the amount set in relation to any particular pending charge for which legal proceedings are imminent. Indeed, inmates often do not even have future court dates set and are held indefinitely without being brought to court. If a person subsequently misses any future “payment” date, the City, without any meaningful legal adversarial process, confiscates any previous amounts paid by the person to secure their release from jail and resets the person’s debts. The City also adds a “warrant” fee for the person’s missed payment date without any legal
39

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 40 of 62 PageID #: 40
process.18 In this way, many impoverished people end up paying thousands of dollars over a period of many years to the City based on a small number of relatively inexpensive initial tickets.
201. At any moment, a person can end this cycle by paying the balance of her debt. It is and has been the policy and practice of the City of Jennings to allow any inmate at any time to pay the full amount of the debt owed and to be released immediately, terminating all existing “cases” for which debt is being collected.19
202. It is and has been the policy and practice of the City of Jennings to keep some debtors in jail for indefinite periods without bringing them to court when they cannot pay their cash release amounts. The City has often kept inmates unable to make monetary payments in its jail for weeks without even bringing them to the courtroom.20
ii. Debt-Collection Proceedings in the Jennings Municipal Court 203. It is and has been the policy and practice of the City of Jennings to conduct a “confined docket” every Tuesday evening. At that docket, some (but not all) inmates who have been unable to secure enough money for their release from custody are brought before the City clerks, City prosecutor, and City judge. As a matter of policy and practice, inmates are not provided counsel by the City even though the City is represented by an experienced prosecutor at such proceedings. 204. During the “confined docket,” inmates are told by City officials that they will remain in jail unless they can make monetary payments based on the total amount of debt that they
18 For example, the person is not arraigned on any new charge for failure to appear prior to the “warrant” fee being added, and the person is not given a meaningful opportunity to present a defense to the elements of such a potential charge or appointed an attorney to defend her on any new charge. The money is simply added to the person’s debts. 19 The “cases” for which the City is collecting debts have, for the most part, been closed for years, with civil judgments entered requiring the payment of fines and costs. 20 The City also follows a policy and practice of holding inmates in jail for days on behalf of other municipalities until the other municipality decides whether it will pick them up or not.
40

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 41 of 62 PageID #: 41
owe.21 Inmates are told that they will remain in jail unless they pay even though it is the policy
and practice of the City of Jennings not to provide them with an attorney and not to conduct any
meaningful inquiry into their ability to pay or alternatives to incarceration as required by the United
States Constitution.22
205. Inmates are not advised of their relevant rights under federal or Missouri law,
including applicable constitutional rights and state-law defenses and procedures.
206. Those appearing in court from jail are told that they must pay a certain amount of
money or be kept in jail. They are, as a matter of policy and practice, told to make phone calls to
family members in an attempt to get family members to pay their debts. The amount of money
required for release is usually lowered at each subsequent court appearance if the person has not
paid the amount since the previous appearance. If a person is in jail long enough, that amount is
usually reduced to $0, and the person is released for free without payment.
207. It is the policy and practice of the City to lock the court and building doors while
conducting its “confined docket,” thereby illegally barring the public from observing arraignments,
plea hearings, compliance hearings, debt-collecting proceedings, and all other public proceedings
in open and closed cases in which a person is incarcerated.23
21 Because the City holds court only one time per week, those arrested on new offenses or warrants who cannot afford the amount of money set by the City often languish in jail for nearly a week before seeing a judicial officer. Inmates arrested on new charges (as opposed to previously unpaid debts) are told that they will not be released from custody prior to trial unless and until they make generically determined monetary payments. Arrestees who are not indigent and who can afford the scheduled monetary payment are released immediately after booking. 22 Because no inquiry is made into ability to pay, no inquiry is likewise made into the reasons for non-payment or alternatives to incarceration. 23 The building doors are often opened, as a matter of practice, before the end of the confined docket so that the courtroom can be filled with those waiting for the “payment docket,” which immediately follows the confined docket on Tuesday evenings. Thus, as a matter of practice, those waiting for the “payment docket” are often able to hear the City prosecutor and City judge threatening those who cannot afford their debts with longer jail terms and sending those unable to pay back to the City jail.
When the public is permitted into the courtroom during the “payment docket,” the proceedings are conducted as a matter of policy and practice as private bench conferences, with the defendant standing at the bench with the
41

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 42 of 62 PageID #: 42
208. In general, it is and has been the policy and practice of the City of Jennings to conduct a “payment docket” on Tuesday evenings at the Jennings municipal complex. It is the policy and practice of the City to hold this “payment docket” after the “confined docket.” The stated purpose of this docket is to collect payments from debtors who are too poor to pay off their entire debt to the City from old judgments.
209. As with confined inmates, a person can end this debt-collection process at any time by paying what she owes to the City in full. If a person is too poor to end this process, her closed “case” can go on for years and years in perpetuity after the entry of a civil judgment assessing financial penalties, with the City imposing additional fees and surcharges for late payments and threatening incarceration for missed payments.24
210. On Tuesday nights, a line of several hundred people usually forms outside the building waiting to be let into the municipal complex for the “payment docket.” The crowd consists almost entirely of low-income people of color.
211. Jennings municipal policy dictates that any person owing traffic or other debt to the City need not appear in court if the person can afford to make a payment of $100 or more to the city clerk during the previous month.
212. All people who are too poor to pay at least $100 toward their debts are told by City officials that they are required to appear in the courtroom at the “payment docket.”
213. The courtroom is usually filled with hundreds of people, often making the wait hours for those unable to make significant payments.
judge. The courtroom audience is unable to hear the content of the proceedings, other than the words of the judge, who speaks into a microphone. No transcripts or audio recordings of proceedings are available. 24 It is the policy and practice of the City of Jennings to inform debtors that, if they or their families pay their debt in full, they can be released from jail and have their cases terminated. At any moment, the entire process can be ended by a monetary payment. If a person can afford to make sufficient payments, the person will never have another court date set by the City of Jennings. The termination of these cases is determined solely by the wealth of individuals.
42

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 43 of 62 PageID #: 43
214. At the “payment docket,” courtroom police staff instructs audience members that those paying more money will be called first. The courtroom police staff calls a list of descending dollar amounts between $100 and $25 and instructs those paying each amount to line up when the number is called. The officer informs the audience by shouting to the entire room that anyone who cannot pay at least $25 will be considered a “no pay.”
215. After the officer instructs audience members that if they cannot afford at least $25, they are not permitted to pay and will be classified as a “no pay,” some audience members typically leave the building.
216. The officer instructs the audience that repeated appearances without payment will result in the person being jailed.
217. Those not making a payment or unable to come up with at least $25 are also told by the City clerk who collects payments that they “must” start paying. Officers also inform audience members that they will check “no pay” people for warrants in other municipalities.
218. As each dollar amount is called, large numbers of people rise from the pews and form lines against the wall of the courtroom, proceeding in assembly line fashion to see the officer, who hands them their file. They are then directed to a cash window in the hallway next to the courtroom where they are told to pay the City clerk. Those making significant payments are not required to attend any judicial proceeding, and the judge is often not in the room during the assembly line payment sessions.
219. The City prosecutor and City judge do not conduct indigence or ability-to-pay hearings. Regular observers of the City court have never once seen an indigence or ability to pay hearing conducted in the past decade.
43

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 44 of 62 PageID #: 44
220. The City prosecutor and City judge conduct no meaningful individualized process prior to ordering people to make generic monthly payments. Payment plans are set without any adversarial process and without any individualized inquiry into the circumstances of a debtor. Those jailed for unpaid debts (i.e. for not making their ordered payments) are not appointed an attorney, even though the City is represented by an experienced prosecutor.
221. In addition to the difficulty of mounting constitutional and statutory arguments and defenses in the face of an experienced prosecutor, navigating the origin of the numerous fees and surcharges imposed by Jennings and determining whether they are even validly assessed by the City in any particular case is a complicated inquiry. This inquiry involves the application of state law and procedure; local law and practice; multiple court files, accounting documents, and receipts over a period of years; and constitutional law to a person’s lengthy case history.
222. The vast majority of those jailed for violating the payment plan condition imposed by the City were not represented by an attorney on the underlying traffic or minor charge because of the City’s policy and practice of not appointing counsel.
223. The Plaintiffs and many other witnesses have observed numerous other impoverished people jailed by the City for non-payment of debts without a meaningful inquiry into their ability to pay, without the representation of counsel, and without the consideration of whether imprisonment serves legitimate state interests in light of available alternatives as required by federal and Missouri law. The Plaintiffs and other witnesses have observed numerous other people and families who were told that they or their family member would be held in jail by the City unless and until they brought forward large sums of money to pay off debts supposedly owed for traffic tickets and subsequent surcharges.
44

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 45 of 62 PageID #: 45
224. The City employs a materially different set of procedures for those people who retain private counsel. It is and has been the policy and practice of the City of Jennings to remove existing arrest warrants and schedule new court dates for those debtors who retain a private lawyer. Unrepresented people are told that there is no way to clear their warrants unless they pay the City.
iii. The Deplorable Conditions in the Jennings Jail 225. As described above, inmates jailed for non-payment are, as a matter of City policy and practice, kept in overcrowded cells with inmates strewn about the floor and tables. The City deliberately ignores basic principles of hygiene, sanitation, medical and mental health care, and inmate safety. 226. Inmates are denied toothbrushes, toothpaste, and soap; they are kept in cells that reek of visible excrement and surrounded by walls smeared with blood and mucus; they are kept in the same clothes for days and weeks without access to laundry; they huddle in frigid temperatures with a single thin blanket even as they beg guards for warm blankets; they develop illnesses and infections in open wounds that spread to other inmates; they sleep next to an open uncleansed toilet and shower space overgrown with mold; they endure weeks without being allowed to use the shower; women are not given adequate hygiene products for menstruation, and the lack of trash removal has on occasion forced women to leave bloody napkins in full view on the cell floor where inmates sleep; they are routinely denied vital medical care and prescription medication, even when their families beg to be allowed to bring medication to the jail; inmates with serious mental health issues are not provided mental health treatment or prescription medication that they need; they are provided food so insufficient and lacking in nutrition that inmates are forced to compete to perform demeaning janitorial labor for extra food rations and exercise; they suffer from dehydration because they are given water that smells and comes from a
45

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 46 of 62 PageID #: 46
rusty faucet connected to the top of the toilet; and they are deprived of books, legal materials, exercise, television, internet, or natural light.
227. On March 22, 2013, an inmate unable to afford debt from traffic tickets hanged himself in the Jennings jail. On October 6, 2014, another man hanged himself after being held in Jennings because he was not able to pay $500 for his release.
228. Other inmates have been abused and physically beaten by jail staff as a result of a culture of unaccountability and abuse resulting from a lack of adequate training and supervision.
229. These abuses and deprivations are accompanied by other pervasive humiliations. As described above, jail guards routinely taunt impoverished people when they are unable to pay for their release.
230. When groups of inmates are brought to court, courtroom staff often walks down the hallway spraying Fabreze because the stench emanating from the inmates is unbearable.
231. The totality of these conditions described by the Plaintiffs and by numerous witnesses amounts to unlawful punishment. The conditions at the Jennings jail are deliberately designed to be as degrading and humiliating as possible in order to punish debtors for not paying their debts and to discourage them from missing payments to the City. The purpose and effect is to coerce debtors to borrow money or use money otherwise needed for the basic necessities of life in order to pay the City to avoid being subjected to the dangerous and humiliating Jennings jail.
232. The jail conditions created and perpetuated by the City of Jennings would be unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment even were convicted prisoners treated with such callous disregard to basic health and safety. The City forces these conditions on pretrial detainees and post-judgment debtors jailed long after monetary judgments and solely because of their inability to make monetary payments and not pursuant to any criminal sentence.
46

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 47 of 62 PageID #: 47
233. The use of the Jennings jail and its deplorable conditions in discrete spurts of
confinement followed by incrementally reducing the sums of cash required for release or granting
release for free after several days has the purpose and effect of punishing people rather than
achieving any other lawful goal.
iv. The City’s Flawed and Unlawful Warrant Process
234. It is and has been the policy and practice of the City to issue invalid arrest warrants
and to apply arbitrary and illegal policies for the issuance and recalling of warrants.
235. Among the policies and practices of the City of Jennings are the following:
a. The City informs people that they can remove outstanding warrants simply by paying a sum of money but does not offer a way for the indigent to remove arrest warrants.
b. The City allows for the removal of existing warrants without paying the City only if the person retains a lawyer.
c. The City issues arrest warrants for the failure to make a payment by a certain date without probable cause to believe that the person had the ability to make a payment.
d. When impoverished people appear in the courtroom, they are told by the judge, courtroom officers, City prosecutor, and City clerk that they will be jailed if they do not bring specific sums of money to the City on designated dates in the future.
e. The City issues arrest warrants when people do not pay by certain designated dates even though the person did not fail to appear at any court appearance.
f. The City issues arrest warrants for “failure to appear” at court dates for which the person had not been given adequate notice, such as when the City routinely fails to provide a valid summons or when the City moves a hearing to a new date and time without providing reasonable notice. The City does not adequately ensure actual notice of changes in court dates and routinely issues arrest warrants even when it has no probable cause to believe that the elements of a “failure to appear” charge have been met, such as when the person did not intentionally fail to appear because the person was in the custody of another jurisdiction or was in the hospital.
g. The City locks the courthouse doors, thereby preventing people who appear for court from entering, and then issues arrest warrants for people who were locked out of the building.
h. After arrest pursuant to a warrant, the City either does not bring the person to court at all or delays presentment unnecessarily and for no legitimate purpose for days or weeks.
47

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 48 of 62 PageID #: 48
C. The Cycle of Debt and Jailing in Other Municipalities 236. Like the other impoverished people stuck in this broken system, the Plaintiffs have been overwhelmed by the combination of multiplying fines, fees, costs, and surcharges from many different municipalities at once, as well as the cycle of repeated jailings and subsequent transfers to several different jails during each jailing, lost jobs, increased fees, and the inability to renew drivers’ licenses because of unpaid tickets. After scraping together cash from family and friends and borrowing money to pay Jennings, the Plaintiffs and other Class members would simply be jailed by another city. 237. The hopelessness of trying to navigate this system for years without financial resources and without the assistance of a lawyer who understands the process—never knowing when they left the house if they would be arrested and always confronted with the powerlessness of being kept in jail indefinitely because of their poverty—fundamentally altered the lives of the Plaintiffs and continues to tear at the core of the community. 238. The fear of having basic rights violated with no recourse is a daily fact of life for the Plaintiffs and thousands of others. It is this despair that the Saint Louis County debtors’ prison network cultivates that leads many impoverished people to avoid the system and some, sadly, to take their own lives while languishing in a jail cell.25
Class Action Allegations 239. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, for the purpose of asserting the claims alleged in this Complaint on a common basis. 240. A class action is a superior means, and the only practicable means, by which Plaintiffs and unknown Class members can challenge the City’s unlawful debt-collection scheme.
25 At least four suicides or suicide attempts by people held because they were too poor to pay for their release have occurred in local jails just in the past five months.
48

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 49 of 62 PageID #: 49
241. This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a Class action pursuant to Rule 23(a)(1)-(4), Rule 23(b)(2), and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
242. This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of those provisions.
243. Plaintiffs propose two Classes: a Declaratory and Injunctive Class and a Damages Class. The Declaratory and Injunctive Class is defined as: All persons who currently owe or who will incur debts to the City of Jennings from fines, fees, costs, or surcharges arising from cases in the City court.
244. The Damages Class is defined as: All persons who, from February 8, 2010, until the present, were held in jail by the City because of their non-payment of a monetary sum required by the City.
245. The Damages Class contains one Subclass: the Jail Labor Subclass. The Jail Labor Subclass is defined as: Those people who were kept in jail by the City for non-payment of debts and who were coerced into providing free labor to the City in the form of janitorial services because they were subjected to the City’s policy of depriving inmates of sufficient food and exercise.
A. Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) 246. Over the past five years, thousands of people have owed and currently owe the City of Jennings money from old traffic tickets and other minor municipal offenses. Pursuant to City policy and practice, thousands of people who have indicated that they are too poor to pay their debts in total have been placed on payment plans by the City. All of these people are currently being threatened with arrest and jailing if they do not make the payments in the amount or frequency purportedly required by the City. 247. The City has kept hundreds of people in its jail for non-payment in each of the past
49

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 50 of 62 PageID #: 50
five years. The City retains, and is required by law to retain, records of these instances.
248. The City followed and follows materially the same debt-collection policies,
practices, and procedures to accomplish the jailing of the Class members. For example, pursuant
to the City’s policy and practice, those kept in jail by the City for non-payment did not receive
meaningful inquiries into their ability to pay as required by federal and Missouri law. Pursuant to
City policy, no determinations of indigence, ability to pay hearings, or evaluations of alternatives
to incarceration were made, and the City provided none of the relevant state and federal protections
for debtors. Nor were those jailed by the City provided adequate counsel to represent them.
249. Those who still owe the City debt payments or who will incur such debts will be
subjected to the same ongoing policies and practices absent the relief sought in this Complaint.
B. Commonality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2).
250. The relief sought is common to all members of the Injunctive and Damages Classes,
and common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Classes. The Plaintiffs seek
relief concerning whether the City’s policies, practices, and procedures violated their rights and
relief mandating the City to change its policies, practices, and procedures so that the Plaintiffs’
rights will be protected in the future.
251. Among the most important, but not the only, common questions of fact are:
 Whether the City has a policy and practice of keeping people in its jail who owe money on old judgments unless and until they can pay a monetary sum;
 Whether the City has a policy and practice of incrementally lowering the amount required to buy a debtor’s release from custody as the person sits in jail;
 Whether the City has a policy and practice of failing to conduct meaningful inquiries into the ability of a person to pay before jailing the person for non-payment;
 Whether the City provides notice to debtors that their ability to pay will be a relevant issue at the proceedings at which they are jailed or kept in jail and whether the City makes findings concerning ability to pay and alternatives to incarceration;
 Whether the City provides adequate legal representation to those jailed for unpaid debts in proceedings that result in their incarceration;
 Whether the City jail conditions are unsanitary and inhumane in the ways described in this
50

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 51 of 62 PageID #: 51
Complaint;  Whether City employees and agents have a policy and practice of threatening debtors and
families of debtors with incarceration for unpaid debts without informing them of their rights;  Whether the City has a policy of issuing and executing warrants for the arrest of debtors despite lacking probable cause that they have committed any offense and without any notice or opportunity to be heard concerning their ability to pay or the validity of the debt.  Whether the City has a policy of coercing inmates to perform free janitorial labor in exchange for increased food rations;  Whether the City has a policy and practice of closing the courtroom to the public.
252. Among the most important common question of law are:
 Whether keeping people in jail solely because they cannot afford to make a monetary payment is lawful;
 Whether people are entitled to a meaningful inquiry into their ability to pay before being jailed by the City for non-payment of debts;
 Whether people who cannot afford to pay the City are entitled to the consideration of alternatives to incarceration before being jailed for non-payment of debts;
 Whether people are entitled to adequate legal representation in debt-collection proceedings initiated and litigated by City prosecutors that result in their incarceration if they cannot afford an attorney;
 Whether the City can employ jail, threats of jail, and other harsh debt-collection measures (such as ordering payment of significant portions of a person’s public assistance benefits) against debtors who cannot afford immediately to pay the City in full;
 Whether the City can arrest people based solely on their non-payment without any probable cause that they have committed any willful conduct or other offense and without notice and an opportunity to be heard concerning legal predicates for a valid detention, such as their ability to pay and the validity of the debt;
 Whether the City can, consistent with federal law, coerce free labor through the provision of insufficient food rations;
 Whether the inhumane and unsanitary conditions endured by the Plaintiffs and other Class members violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;
 Whether the City can, consistent with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, close the City court proceedings from public view.
253. These common legal and factual questions arise from one central scheme and set
of policies and practices: the City’s enormously profitable traffic and ordinance debt collection
system. The City operates this scheme openly and in materially the same manner every day, and
all of the ancillary factual questions about how that scheme operates are common to all members
of the Classes, as well as the resulting legal questions about whether that scheme is unlawful. The
51

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 52 of 62 PageID #: 52
material components of the scheme do not vary from Class member to Class member, and the resolution of these legal and factual issues will determine whether all of the members of the class are entitled to the constitutional relief that they seek.
C. Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). 254. The named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Classes and Subclass respectively, and they have the same interests in this case as all other members of the Classes that they represent. Each of them suffered injuries from the failure of the City to comply with the basic constitutional provisions detailed below. The answer to whether the City’s scheme of policies and practices is unconstitutional will determine the claims of the named Plaintiffs and every other Class member. 255. If the named Plaintiffs succeed in their claims that the City’s policies and practices concerning debt collection for fines, fees, costs, and surcharges violate the law in the ways alleged in each claim of the Complaint, then that ruling will likewise benefit every other member of the Injunctive and Damages Classes, as well as the Damages Subclasses.26 D. Adequacy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). 256. The named Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Classes because they are members of the Classes and because their interests coincide with, and are not antagonistic to, those of the Classes. There are no known conflicts of interest among Class members, all of whom have a similar interest in vindicating the constitutional rights to which they are entitled. 257. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Equal Justice Under Law,27 who have
26 The named Plaintiffs representing the Damages Class are Samantha Jenkins, Edward Brown, Keilee Fant, Byeon Wells, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, and Herbert Nelson Jr. The named Plaintiffs representing the Damages Class are Samantha Jenkins, Edward Brown, Keilee Fant, Byeon Wells, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson Jr., and Tonya DeBerry. 27 Equal Justice Under Law is a non-profit civil rights organization based in Washington, D.C. The organization is funded in part by the Harvard Law School Public Service Venture Fund.
52

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 53 of 62 PageID #: 53
experience in litigating complex civil rights matters in federal court and extensive knowledge of
both the details of the City’s scheme and the relevant constitutional and statutory law. Plaintiffs
are also represented by attorneys from ArchCity Defenders who have extensive experience with
the functioning of the entire municipal court system in the City of Jennings through their
representation of numerous impoverished people in the City of Jennings.28 Plaintiffs are also
represented by the Saint Louis University School of Law,29 whose distinguished clinical professors
and dedicated students have devoted enormous time and resources to studying the functioning of
the municipal court system and the applicable federal and state law, as well as to representing
impoverished people affected by the illegalities permeating the City’s municipal scheme.
258. The efforts of Plaintiffs’ counsel have so far included extensive investigation over
a period of months, including numerous interviews with witnesses, City employees, City jail
inmates, families, attorneys practicing in the Jennings Municipal Court, community members,
statewide experts in the functioning of Missouri municipal courts, and national experts in
constitutional law, debt collection, bankruptcy law, criminal law, and forced labor.
259. Counsel have also observed numerous courtroom hearings in the City of Jennings
and in municipalities across the region in order to compile a detailed understanding of state law
Counsel from Equal Justice Under Law was recently lead counsel in a landmark federal civil rights class action lawsuit against the City of Montgomery for engaging in similar debtors’ prison practices. In that case, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama issued a preliminary injunction condemning and forbidding the City of Montgomery’s similar jailing of impoverished people with unpaid debts, and the case was successfully settled after the City of Montgomery agreed to compensate the Plaintiffs and to the entry of an injunction reforming its entire municipal debt-collection regime. 28 ArchCity Defenders is a non-profit public interest law firm based in Saint Louis. It has represented the poor and homeless in cases involving the City of Jennings for the past five years and is an expert on the ways in which Jennings’s illegal practices and policies make and keep people poor. ArchCity Defenders also published an extensive report detailing similar practices and policies in the cities of Bel-Ridge, Ferguson, and Florissant. The report is available at www.archcitydefenders.org. 29 Saint Louis University School of Law Clinics have been involved in representing the poor and homeless in municipal courts for many years and have extensive knowledge of and experience with the systemic constitutional violations pervading the City’s scheme. Further, the Clinic and its professors have extensive experience in class action lawsuits.
53

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 54 of 62 PageID #: 54
and practices as they relate to federal constitutional requirements. Counsel have studied the way that these systems function in other cities in order to investigate the wide array of options in practice for municipalities.
260. As a result, counsel have devoted enormous time and resources to becoming intimately familiar with the City’s scheme and with all of the relevant state and federal laws and procedures that can and should govern it. Counsel has also developed relationships with many of the individuals and families most victimized by the City’s practices.
261. The interests of the members of the Class will be fairly and adequately protected by the Plaintiffs and their attorneys.
E. Rule 23(b)(2) 262. Class action status is appropriate because the City, through the policies, practices, and procedures that make up its traffic and ordinance debt-collection scheme, has acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Declaratory and Injunctive Class. Thus, a declaration that people in the City cannot be held in jail solely because they cannot afford to make a monetary payment will apply to each Class member. Similarly, a determination that Class members are entitled, as a matter of federal law, to a meaningful inquiry into their ability to pay and an evaluation of alternatives to incarceration before they are jailed by the City for non-payment will apply to each Class member. The same applies to rulings on the other claims, including: that Class members are entitled to representation by counsel at proceedings initiated and litigated by City prosecutors in connection with which they are jailed; that the City cannot imprison Class members for debts and then coerce them into working for the City as jailed janitors; that the City cannot collect debts from Class members in a manner that violates and evades all of the relevant protections for other judgment debtors; that the jail conditions to which members of the class are
54

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 55 of 62 PageID #: 55
exposed are inhumane and unconstitutional; and that the City cannot issue and execute arrest warrants for traffic debtors without probable cause that they have committed an offense and without notice or a hearing prior to the deprivation of their liberty..
263. Injunctive relief compelling the City to comply with these constitutional rights will similarly protect each member of the Class from being again subjected to the City’s unlawful policies and practices with respect to the debts that they still owe and protect those who will incur such debts in the future from the same unconstitutional conduct. Therefore, declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a whole is appropriate.
F: Rule 23(b)(3) 264. Class treatment under Rule 23(b)(3) is also appropriate because the common questions of law and fact overwhelmingly predominate in this case. This case turns, for every Plaintiff, on what the City’s policies and practices are and on whether those policies are lawful. 265. The common questions of law and fact listed above are dispositive questions in the case of every member of the Classes and Subclasses. The question of liability can therefore be determined on a class-wide basis. Class-wide treatment of liability is a far superior method of determining the content and legality of the City’s policies and practices than individual suits by hundreds or thousands of City residents. The question of damages will also be driven by classwide determinations, such as the policies, practices, and conditions at the City jail. To the extent that individual damages will vary, they will vary depending in large part on the amount of time that a person was unlawfully jailed. Determining damages for individual Class members can thus typically be handled in a ministerial fashion based on easily verifiable records of the length of unlawful incarceration. If need be, individual hearings on Class-member specific damages based
55

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 56 of 62 PageID #: 56
on special circumstances can be held after Class-wide liability is determined—a method far more efficient than the wholesale litigation of hundreds or thousands of individual lawsuits.
266. The Plaintiffs seek the following relief and hereby demand a jury in this cause for all matters so appropriate.
Claims for Relief Count One: Defendant City of Jennings Violated the Plaintiffs’ Rights By Jailing Them Because They Could Not Afford To Pay the City. 267. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-266. 268. The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses have long prohibited imprisoning a person for the failure to pay money owed to the government if that person is indigent and unable to pay. Defendant violated Plaintiffs’ rights by imprisoning Plaintiffs when they could not afford to pay the debts allegedly owed from traffic and other minor offenses. Defendant violated Plaintiffs’ rights by imprisoning them, and by threatening to imprison them, without conducting any inquiry into their ability to pay and without conducting any inquiry into alternatives to imprisonment as required by the United States Constitution. At any moment, a wealthier person in the Plaintiffs’ position could have paid a sum of cash and been released from jail. Defendant’s policy and practice of keeping Plaintiffs in its jail unless and until they are able to pay arbitrarily determined and constantly-shifting sums of money violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Count Two: Defendant City of Jennings Violated Plaintiffs’ Rights By Imprisoning Them Without Providing Adequate Counsel. 269. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-268. 270. Defendant violated Plaintiffs’ right to the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by imprisoning Plaintiffs
56

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 57 of 62 PageID #: 57
during proceedings initiated by City prosecutors at which Plaintiffs did not have the benefit of counsel and did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive counsel. The City’s policy of not providing adequate counsel at hearings in which indigent people are ordered to be imprisoned in the City jail for unpaid debts, which are, in turn, based on payment plans arising from traffic and other violations at which the person was also unrepresented, violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Count Three: Defendant City of Jennings’ Use of Indefinite and Arbitrary Detention Violates Due Process
271. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-270 above. 272. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the City from jailing the Plaintiffs indefinitely and without any meaningful legal process through which they can challenge their detention by keeping them confined in the Defendant’s jail unless or until they could make arbitrarily determined cash payments. Count Four: The Deplorable Conditions in the Jennings Jail Violate Due Process and Constitute Impermissible Punishment 273. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-272 above. 274. The unsafe, unsanitary, inhumane, and dangerous conditions of confinement in the Jennings jail constitute impermissible punishment unrelated to serving any criminal judgment. Even if imposed after valid conviction, the conditions would constitute cruel and unusual treatment. The deplorable and excessively harsh conditions pervasive in the Defendant’s jail are unnecessary to accomplish any legitimate government objective and shock the conscience of any reasonable person concerned with human dignity and liberty. Count Five: Defendant City of Jennings’ Scheme of Coercing Indigent Prisoners to Labor For Free in the City Jail in Order to Obtain Extra Food Violates the Thirteenth Amendment.
57

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 58 of 62 PageID #: 58
275. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-274 above. 276. The City unlawfully held the Plaintiffs and Class members in jail because of their inability to make a monetary payment to the City. The City provided insufficient food and overcrowded and disgusting cells, coercing inmates to volunteer to perform janitorial work in order to secure extra necessities, such as additional food and time outside of the congested cells. The coercion based on inadequate food and constitutionally deficient living conditions forced inmates, in their desperation, to labor without compensation and not pursuant to any criminal conviction. 277. The Plaintiffs allegedly owed the City a solely monetary debt for the fines, fees, and costs from civil judgments for traffic tickets and other minor municipal offenses. Because the Plaintiffs were not imprisoned or sentenced to involuntary servitude as punishment for any crime, the Thirteenth Amendment bars the coerced use of their labor to save the City employment and janitorial costs. The City’s conduct also violates federal statutory law, including 18 U.S.C. § 1589 (forced labor under threat of physical restraint or abuse of process), § 1593A (benefitting from peonage); and § 1595 (providing a civil remedy). Count Six: Defendant City of Jennings’ Use of Jail and Threats of Jail To Collect Debts Owed to the City Violates Equal Protection Because It Imposes Unduly Harsh and Punitive Restrictions On Debtors Whose Creditor Is the Government Compared To Those Who Owe Money to Private Creditors. 278. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-277 above. 279. The United States Supreme Court has held that, when governments seek to recoup costs from indigent defendants, they may not take advantage of their position to impose unduly restrictive methods of collection solely because the debt is owed to the government and not to a private creditor. Not only does the City place indigent people on generic and overly onerous payment plans lasting years or decades when the cases of wealthier people would be closed, but by imposing imprisonment, repeated threats of imprisonment, indeterminate “payment dockets”
58

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 59 of 62 PageID #: 59
for many years, extra and invalid fees and surcharges, and other restrictions on Plaintiffs, the City takes advantage of its control over the machinery of the City jail and police systems to deny debtors the statutory protections that every other Missouri debtor may invoke against a private creditor. Many people like the Plaintiffs owing money to the City of Jennings have to borrow money, ration public benefits, and go further into debt in order to pay off the City of Jennings because other nongovernment creditors are not permitted to jail them, threaten to jail them, or compel their repeated appearances for years for non-payment of debt. This coercive policy and practice constitutes invidious discrimination and violates the fundamental principles of equal protection of the laws.
Count Seven: Defendant City of Jennings’s Policy and Practice of Issuing and Serving Invalid Warrants, Including Those Solely Based on Nonpayment of Monetary Debt, Violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
280. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-279 above. 281. The City’s policy and practice is to issue and serve arrest warrants against those who have not paid their debt from old judgments in traffic and other minor cases. These warrants are sought, issued, and served without any inquiry into the person’s ability to pay even when the City has prior knowledge that the person is impoverished and unable to pay the debts or possesses other valid defenses. These warrants are regularly sought, issued, and served without any finding of probable cause that the person has committed the elements of any offense. The City chooses to pursue warrants instead of issuing summons even when it has spoken to people on the phone or in person and has the opportunity to notify them to appear in court. The City enforces a policy of allowing wealthy residents or residents who can afford to hire an attorney to remove their warrants but refusing to remove warrant. Moreover, the City’s policy and practice of not presenting arrestees in court or unreasonably delaying presentment for days or weeks for no legitimate reason
59

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 60 of 62 PageID #: 60
is unlawful. These practices violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and result in a
deprivation of fundamental liberty without adequate due process.
Count Eight: Defendant City of Jennings’s Policy and Practice of Locking the Courtroom’s Doors, Closing Judicial Proceedings to the Public During Proceedings Involving City Inmates, and Conducting Judicial Proceedings Through Private Bench Conference Violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
282. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-281 above.
283. Defendant’s blanket policy of courtroom closure during cases involving inmates
from the Jennings jail violates the Plaintiffs’ and the public’s First Amendment Right of Access to
public judicial proceedings. Moreover, the Defendant’s policy and practice of holding
presumptively public judicial proceedings through private bench conferences—without making
on-the-record findings of the necessity of closure prior to shielding presumptively public judicial
proceedings from public access—effectively renders those proceedings secret in violation of the
First and Fourteenth Amendments and federal common law. Defendants’ policy and practice of
conducting municipal court proceedings in a way that prevents the public from accessing and
hearing what transpires in those proceedings, and without subsequently providing transcripts or
other means of recording those proceedings, violates their constitutional obligation to make
judicial proceedings in criminal cases open to the public.
Request for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court issue the following relief:
a. A declaratory judgment that Defendant violates Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights by imprisoning them because they cannot afford to pay the City and by imprisoning them without conducting any meaningful inquiry into their ability to pay or into any alternatives to incarceration;
b. A declaratory judgment that Defendant violates Plaintiffs’ rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments by imprisoning them without appointing adequate counsel at the proceedings that led to their incarceration;
c. A declaratory judgment that Defendant violates Plaintiffs’ rights by holding them indefinitely and arbitrarily in jail independent of any valid legal process;
60

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 61 of 62 PageID #: 61
d. A declaratory judgment that Defendant violates Plaintiffs’ rights by subjecting them to unconstitutional jail conditions;
e. A declaratory judgment that Defendant violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights by coercing them into performing labor in its jail in order to work off their debt;
f. A declaratory judgment that Defendant violates Plaintiffs’ equal protection rights by imposing harsh debt collection measures not imposed on debtors whose creditors are private entities;
g. A declaratory judgment that Defendant violates Plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by issuing and serving arrest warrants without probable cause to believe that the elements of an offense had been committed, with unreasonable delay prior to presentment, and without providing pre-deprivation of liberty process where such process is easily available to the City;
h. An order and judgment permanently enjoining Defendant from enforcing the abovedescribed unconstitutional policies and practices against Plaintiffs;
i. A judgment compensating the Plaintiffs for the damages that they suffered as a result of the City’s unconstitutional and unlawful conduct;
j. An order and judgment granting reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 18 U.S.C. § 1595, and any other relief this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
_/s/ Alec Karakatsanis_______________ Alec Karakatsanis (E.D.Mo. Bar No. 999294DC)
Equal Justice Under Law 916 G Street, NW Suite 701 Washington, DC 20001 (202)-681-2409 alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org
_/s/ Thomas B. Harvey__________________ Thomas B. Harvey (MBE #61734)
_/s/ Michael-John Voss________________ Michael-John Voss (MBE #61742)
ArchCity Defenders 812 N. Collins Alley Saint Louis, MO 63102 855-724-2489
_/s/ John J. Ammann___________________
61

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 1 Filed: 02/08/15 Page: 62 of 62 PageID #: 62 John J. Ammann (MBE #34308) _/s/ Stephen Hanlon________________ Stephen Hanlon (MBE #19340) _/s/ Brendan Roediger________________ Brendan Roediger (E.D.Mo. Bar No. IL6287213) Saint Louis University School of Law 100 N. Tucker Blvd. Saint Louis, MO 63101-1930 314-977-2778 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
62

 
 Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 16 Filed: 09/16/15 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 165

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

)

SAMANTHA JENKINS et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE CITY OF JENNINGS,

)

)

Defendant.

)

___________________________________ )

Case No. 4:15-cv-252-CEJ

ORDER

The plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the constitutionality of the policies and practices of the City of Jennings, Missouri in connection with the incarceration of individuals for non-payment of fines. All of the plaintiffs have been confined in the City of Jennings jail due to their inability to pay fines and court costs stemming from traffic and other municipal violations. The plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of a class of similarly-situated individuals; however, no class has been certified.
On August 26, 2015, the parties submitted a joint motion for entry of a judgment consistent with the terms of their settlement agreement. The settlement agreement addresses only the plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. The parties have not yet resolved the damages claims but are continuing to negotiate in good faith in an effort to do so. It is the Court’s intention to give effect to the parties’ partial settlement by entering the proposed order for injunctive relief. However, the Court will not enter a final judgment in the case until all claims are resolved, whether by settlement, by motion, or by trial.

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 16 Filed: 09/16/15 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 166
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the joint motion for entry of final declaratory and injunctive relief and joint stipulation for dismissal [Doc. # 13] is granted in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ joint request for entry of an injunction consistent with their settlement agreement is granted. The injunction will be entered separately. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, all equitable claims not covered by the settlement agreement are dismissed.

Dated this 16th day of September, 2015.

_______________________________ CAROL E. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

 
 Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 17 Filed: 09/16/15 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: 167

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

)

SAMANTHA JENKINS et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE CITY OF JENNINGS

)

)

___________________________________ )

Case No. 4:15-cv-252-CEJ

PERMANENT INJUNCTION

In accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement entered into by the

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

A. All cases in the Jennings Municipal Court will comply with the following principles:

i. When fines and costs are assessed after an individual pleads guilty to an offense or an adjudication of guilt is made by the court, the judge will ask the individual if they can afford to pay the full amount of the fines and costs. If the individual is able to pay the fines and costs on the same day, the individual will be directed to the pay window or otherwise informed how to make payment. The full amount of fines and costs will be paid and the case will be closed.

ii. If the individual tells the court that he or she is unable to pay on the same day, the individual will be directed to the payment window and given a form with the following options, and the option selected by the individual will be ordered by the court: (a) placed on a payment plan to pay the fines and costs on a certain date if the individual confirms that the payment can be made on a certain date, with the individual also being told that the total payment must be made within six months of the court date (in no event will a person be charged extra fees for participation in a payment plan); (b) placed on a payment plan to make monthly payments and given a compliance date to make full payment of the fines and costs within six months of the court date; and (c) the individual will be given the opportunity to complete a financial hardship form and given the opportunity to then present the financial hardship form to the judge to discuss the individual’s financial status and condition. The individual will complete the financial hardship form under the penalty of perjury and/or contempt of court and if the individual meets an objective definition of indigence to be agreed upon by the Parties, the judge will give the option to the individual to suspend the payment of fines and costs and

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 17 Filed: 09/16/15 Page: 2 of 6 PageID #: 168
satisfy the judgment by performing community service at a fixed hourly rate of at least $10.00 per hour, to attend an approved social program, or to pay the money owed on the fines and costs in monthly payments to be paid in full within six months of the court date. In either case, the judge has the discretion to reduce the fines and costs based upon the financial condition of the individual pursuant to R.S.Mo. § 560.026.1 (2000). The judge will consider an individual to be indigent if the individual is determined to be at or below 125% of the Federal Poverty Level or, if the person is above 125% of the poverty line, the judge will make an individualized assessment of the person’s ability to pay based on the totality of the circumstances. If the individual chooses the option of community service, the individual will be given 14 days to provide the name and address of the organization and authorization from a representative of the organization for whom the community service will be performed to the Jennings Municipal Court for approval with the agreement that the community service will be performed within six months of the approval. The Jennings Municipal Court shall have available at least two community service options that people can choose should they not be able to find their own placement and will provide names of approved social programs that the individual can attend. If the individual chooses the option of attending an approval social program, the individual will be given 14 days to provide the name of the social program and confirmation that the individual has enrolled in the social program with the agreement that the individual will complete the program within six months.
All forms created for individuals requesting payment on a certain date and a payment plan to pay the fines and costs within six months of the court date will confirm to the individuals that the failure to pay the fines and costs as agreed will result in the City of Jennings referring the collection of the fines and costs to a civil debt collector for collection. The form will also confirm that the performance of community service and/or the certified completion of an approved social program as ordered will result in the full payment of the fines and costs. Moreover, if an individual accepts the option of performing community service or to attend an approved social program to pay the fines and costs, the form will also confirm that the failure to perform the community service or complete the approved social program as agreed will result in the fines and costs being reinstated and turned over to a civil debt collector for collection. The individual will be given credit for the community service performed when the fines and costs are reinstated for the failure to perform an amount of community service to pay the entire fine and costs.
iii. The City of Jennings will eliminate the payment docket. All debts for fines and costs will be collected in a manner consistent with the enforcement of civil monetary judgments under Missouri law. If fines and costs are not paid or resolved by community service or waived within six months from the date assessed and/or approved, the City of Jennings will refer the debt to a civil debt collector and take no further action in the municipal court. As stated above, this process will be communicated to every individual when the fines and costs are
2

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 17 Filed: 09/16/15 Page: 3 of 6 PageID #: 169
assessed through the use of court forms. In no event will a civil collector be permitted to charge debtors additional fees in addition to the total amount of court debts owed, and the City agrees not to contract with any debt collector who threatens debtors with prosecution or incarceration for non-payment.
iv. The City of Jennings will comply with all laws of the State of Missouri relating to the operation of a Municipal Court, including all statutes contained in Senate Bill No. 5. If any change in state law creates a conflict with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the City will notify opposing counsel and the district court as soon as practicable so that appropriate action, if any, can be taken.
B. The City of Jennings and all of its officers, employees, and agents will not utilize secured money bail for persons in the custody of the City on arrest, either without a warrant or on the initial warrant issued, for any violation that may be prosecuted by the City.
i. The City of Jennings and all of its officers, employees, and agents will offer every person in the custody of the City on arrest, either without a warrant or on the initial warrant issued, for any violation that may be prosecuted by the City, release from custody of the City on recognizance or on an unsecured bond as soon as practicable after booking.
ii. An exception to the use of a recognizance or unsecured bond for an arrest as soon as practicable after booking shall be for individuals arrested for domestic assault, intentional assault or threatening conduct, and/or assault. These individuals will be held in the City of Jennings Jail up to 24 hours pursuant to the terms of § 544.170 R.S.Mo. (2000). These individuals will either be held in jail for up to 24 hours and then released on recognizance or unsecured bond or brought before the Court within 24 hours of arrest for potential imposition of conditions for release other than the posting of money bond or for a determination that release must be denied to prevent danger to a victim, the community, or any other person under applicable constitutional standards. At such a preventative detention hearing, the protections identified in United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) will be available if anyone is detained pending trial. If the judge does impose conditions of release for these individuals, individuals who violate conditions of release shall be subject to such actions as determined by the court pursuant to applicable law. If the individual is released during the 24-hour period on recognizance or an unsecured bond, the City of Jennings will either serve the individual with a summons or citation with a specified court date upon release or send a summons with specified charges and a specified court date to the individual at the individual’s last known address by certified and regular mail.
iii. Another exception to the use of a recognizance or unsecured bond for an arrest as soon as practicable after booking shall be for individuals arrested who appear to be incapacitated or intoxicated. These individuals will be held in the City of Jennings Jail up to 12 hours pursuant to the terms of R.S.Mo. 67.315. These individuals will be held in custody up to 12 hours and released on recognizance or
3

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 17 Filed: 09/16/15 Page: 4 of 6 PageID #: 170
unsecured bond and will be either served with a summons or citation with a specified court date upon release or sent a summons with specified charges and specified court date at the individual’s last known address by certified and regular mail.
iv. If an individual fails to appear on a court date in the Jennings Municipal Court specified on a summons and/or a citation, the Jennings Municipal Court will send another summons to that individual that confirms that the individual has missed a court date and further confirms if the individual does not appear on a new court date set in the summons that a warrant will be issued for the individual’s arrest. This summons will be sent by regular mail to the individual’s last known address. If the individual misses the second court date, the Jennings Municipal Court will issue a warrant for the individual’s arrest. The individual will be mailed a notification by regular mail at the individual’s last known address that the warrant has been issued with a copy of the warrant. The notification will confirm to the individual that the warrant can be removed and a new court date scheduled by the municipal court if the individual will appear in person at the Clerk’s Office of the municipal court to schedule a new court date. If the individual chooses to appear in person at the Jennings Municipal Court Clerk’s Office to schedule a new court date, the individual will be given a summons confirming the new court date to be signed by the individual which will also confirm that another warrant will be issued for the individual’s arrest if the individual fails to appear at the Jennings Municipal Court on the new court date.
If the individual fails to appear in person at the Jennings Municipal Court Clerk’s Office to request the warrant to be removed, the warrant will remain outstanding. If the individual is arrested on that warrant, the individual will be processed in the City of Jennings Jail and given a recognizance and will sign a form containing a new court date. Thereafter, the Jennings Municipal Court will send a new summons to the individual with the new court date to the individual’s last known address by regular mail.
If the individual then fails to appear on this new court date after procuring a new court date from the Municipal Clerk or service of the first warrant, then the Jennings Municipal Court will issue a new warrant with an unsecured bond. If the individual is arrested on this warrant, the individual will sign a form that will confirm a new court date and that the unsecured bond will be forfeited and converted to a judgment against the individual upon the individual’s subsequent failure to appear at the new court date. The form will also confirm that if the individual does not appear on the new court date and the unsecured bond is converted to a judgment, that the City of Jennings will refer the collection of the debt for the unsecured bond to a civil debt collector if the debt is not paid by the individual within six months of the date the judgment is entered. At any time after any non-appearance, the City of Jennings may take appropriate and lawful steps under the state law to convert any unsecured bond into a civil money judgment.
4

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 17 Filed: 09/16/15 Page: 5 of 6 PageID #: 171
If the person fails to appear at the subsequent proceeding, the City’s Municipal Court may, in its discretion, issue a new warrant and the City may arrest the person. Upon arrest, the City may detain the person in custody without bond for up to 48 hours so that the person may be brought before a judge for the consideration of their underlying case and, if further proceedings are necessary, for individualized consideration of detention or conditions of release provided that no person will be denied pretrial release because of their individual inability to make a monetary payment.
v. If Jennings has in its custody a person on behalf of another municipality, Jennings will make efforts to determine as soon as practicable why the other jurisdiction is holding the person in custody. Jennings will not keep an arrestee in jail on behalf of another municipality if it learns that the person is being held pursuant to a monetary bond (at which point it shall release the person immediately) and in no event will Jennings keep a person in its custody on behalf of another municipality for longer than 24 hours unless it is determined that the individual will be brought before a court within 48 hours for potential imposition of conditions of release other than the posting of money bond or for a determination that the release must be denied to prevent danger to a victim, the community, or any other person under applicable constitutional standards.
vi. The City of Jennings has recalled all warrants issued prior to the time the lawsuit was filed, has not issued any warrants since the lawsuit has been filed, and has dismissed all cases and forgiven all fines and costs due and owing to the City of Jennings imposed upon individuals before March 12, 2011.
vii. The City of Jennings will not use separate failure to appear charges and will not report non-appearance of individuals at court dates for license suspensions to the Director of Revenue for the State of Missouri.
C. Every inmate in the Jennings Jail will be provided with a toothbrush, toothpaste, hand soap, reasonable access to a shower, reasonably sanitary surroundings, the opportunity to exercise, access to legal materials if requested, adequate medical care, and nutritious meals. No person can be charged any money for any time spent in jail or for the provision of basic needs in jail.
D. All court and jail personnel will be trained by counsel for the City of Jennings and sign written acknowledgments of training on the terms of the settlement.
E. The Parties will agree to reasonable information sharing to be determined by the Parties to enable monitoring of compliance with the court order.
F. No earlier than 18 months after the date of this injunction, either party may move the Court to modify the injunction. The Parties agree to engage in good faith discussions
5

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 17 Filed: 09/16/15 Page: 6 of 6 PageID #: 172 in an effort to resolve any disagreements they may have regarding modifying the injunction prior to filing any motion to modify the injunction. ______________________ Carol E. Jackson United States District Judge Dated this 16th day of September, 2015.
6

 
 Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 33 Filed: 07/13/16 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: 327

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

SAMANTHA JENKINS, EDWARD BROWN, )

KEILEE FANT, BYEON WELLS, MELDON )

MOFFIT, ALLISON NELSON, HERBERT )

NELSON, JR., and TONYA DEBERRY, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE CITY OF JENNINGS,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action No.: 4:15-CV-00252-CEJ

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, DIRECTING THE DISSEMINATION OF NOTICE, AND
SCHEDULING A FINAL SETTEMENT HEARING
The Court has considered the Class Action Settlement Agreement and its Exhibits, the

Parties’ Motion for Preliminarily Approval of Class Action Settlement, directing dissemination

of notice and setting a final settlement hearing, and all other papers filed in this action. The

matter having been submitted and good cause appearing therefore, the Court finds as follows:

1. All defined terms contained herein have the same meaning as set forth in the Class Action Settlement Agreement executed by the Settling Parties and filed with this Court as Exhibit 1 to the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (“Settlement Agreement”);
2. The Class Representatives and the Defendant, through their counsel of record in the Litigation, have reached an agreement to settle all claims in the Litigation;
3. The Court preliminarily concludes that, for the purposes of approving this Settlement only and for no other purpose and with no other effect on the Litigation should the proposed Settlement Agreement not ultimately be approved

02213837.DOCX/1/9652-120 - 7/6/2016 10:50 AM

1

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 33 Filed: 07/13/16 Page: 2 of 6 PageID #: 328
or should the Effective Date not occur, the proposed Class likely meets the requirements for certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: (a) the proposed Class is ascertainable and so numerous that joinder of all members of the class is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law or fact common to the proposed Class, and there is a well-defined community of interest among members of the proposed Class with respect to the subject matter of the Litigation; (c) the claims of the Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the members of the proposed Class; (d) the Class Representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Members of the Class; (e) the counsel of record for the Class Representatives are qualified to serve as counsel for the Class Representatives in their own capacities as well as their representative capacities and for the Class; (f) common issues will likely predominate over individual issues; and (g) a class action is superior to other available methods for an efficient adjudication of this controversy. 4. The moving parties also have presented to the Court for review a Class Action Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit 1 to the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Settlement Agreement proposes a Settlement that is within the range of reasonableness and meets the requirements for preliminary approval. 5. The terms of the Settlement Agreement are sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate to allow dissemination of the Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Hearing to the Class Members. This determination permitting notice to the Class is not a finding that the Settlement Agreement is

02213837.DOCX/1/9652-120 - 7/6/2016 10:50 AM

2

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 33 Filed: 07/13/16 Page: 3 of 6 PageID #: 329
fair, reasonable, and adequate, but simply a determination that there is probable cause to submit the Proposed Settlement to the Class Members. 6. The moving parties have presented to the Court for review a plan to provide to the proposed Class notice of the terms of the Settlement and the various options the Class has, including, among other things, the option for Class Members to opt out of the class action; the option to be represented by counsel of their choosing and to object to the proposed Settlement; and/or the option to become a Claimant. The notice will be published consistent with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. The mailing and publication of notice described in the Settlement Agreement constitutes the best practical Notice of the Final Hearing to Approve the Settlement, the Proposed Settlement, Class Counsel’s Application for Fees and Expenses, and all other matters set forth in the Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Hearing, and constitutes valid, due, and sufficient notice to all members of the Settlement Class, and complies fully with the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(2)(B), the Constitutions of the United States and State of Missouri, the Settlement Class Members’ rights of due process, and all other applicable law. 7. The Court approves the Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Hearing attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit C to be sent to Class Members. 8. The Court takes notice of the proposed request for attorney fees and payment of incentive awards to the Class Representatives from the settlement. The requests

02213837.DOCX/1/9652-120 - 7/6/2016 10:50 AM

3

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 33 Filed: 07/13/16 Page: 4 of 6 PageID #: 330

for attorney fees and payment of incentive fees will be reviewed by the Court at the Final Hearing to Approve the Settlement. Good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court hereby certifies that this action may proceed for settlement purposes as a class action on behalf of a class defined as: All persons who were placed and/or kept in the custody of the City of Jennings Jail after being detained pursuant to a warrant issued by the City of Jennings Municipal Court arising from the nonpayment of a previously imposed fine or court costs and who were allegedly subjected to inhuman conditions of confinement in the City of Jennings Jail. The Class Period is from February 8, 2010 to September 16, 2015.
2. Samantha Jenkins, Edward Brown, Keilee Fant, Byeon Wells, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jr., and Tonya Deberry are hereby appointed representatives of the Settlement Class.
3. Alec Karakatsanis of Equal Justice Under Law; Thomas Harvey, Michael-John Voss and Blake Strode of ArchCity Defenders; and John Ammann, Stephen Hanlon and Brendan Roediger of St. Louis University School of Law Legal Clinic are hereby appointed Class Counsel.
4. The Court hereby grants preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement as falling within the range of possible approval and meriting submission to the Settlement Class for its consideration.

02213837.DOCX/1/9652-120 - 7/6/2016 10:50 AM

4

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 33 Filed: 07/13/16 Page: 5 of 6 PageID #: 331

5. Notice of the proposed Settlement and the rights of Class Members to opt in

and/or out of the Settlement and/or to become a Claimant shall be given by

issuance of publication notice consistent with the terms of the Settlement

Agreement as provided in the Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed

Settlement, and Hearing to be sent to potential Class Members within fourteen

(14) days after the date of this Order. The Defendant shall pay all costs and

expenses of providing Notice to the Class Members.

6.

A hearing shall be held before this Court on December 14, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.

to consider whether the Settlement should be given final approval by the Court.

At the Final Approval Hearing, the Court will consider:

(a) whether the Settlement Agreement should be finally approved as fair,

reasonable, and adequate;

(b) whether a Final Judgment should be entered thereon;

(c) whether Class Counsel fairly and adequately protected the interest of the

Settlement Class; and

(d) whether Class Counsel’s Application for Attorney Fees and Class

Representative Compensation should be approved by the Court.

7. Written objections to the proposed settlement will be considered if received by

Class Counsel and filed with the Court within ninety (90) days of the Notice Date.

8. At the Settlement Hearing, Class Members may be heard orally in support of or, if

they have timely submitted written objections, in opposition to the Settlement

provided that each Class Member requesting to be heard files a “Notice of

Intention to Appear in Jenkins, et al. v. The City of Jennings, 4:15-CV-00252-

02213837.DOCX/1/9652-120 - 7/6/2016 10:50 AM

5

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 33 Filed: 07/13/16 Page: 6 of 6 PageID #: 332

CEJ” with the Court fifteen (15) days before the date of the Final Approval Hearing. 9. Class Counsel and counsel for Defendant should be prepared at the hearing to respond to objections filed by Class Members and to provide other information as appropriate, bearing on whether or not the settlement should be approved; and 10. In the event that the Effective Date occurs, all Class Members will be deemed to have forever released and discharged the Released Claims. In the event that the Effective Date does not occur for any reason whatsoever, the Settlement Agreement shall be deemed null and void and shall have not effect whatsoever. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 13, 2016

_______________________ Carol E. Jackson United States District Judge

02213837.DOCX/1/9652-120 - 7/6/2016 10:50 AM

6

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

SAMANTHA JENKINS, EDWARD BROWN, )

KEILEE FANT, BYEON WELLS, MELDON )

MOFFIT, ALLISON NELSON, HERBERT )

NELSON, JR., and TONYA DEBERRY, et al. )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE CITY OF JENNINGS,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action No.:

4:15-CV-00252-CEJ

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel, and Defendant The City of Jennings, by and through its counsel, hereby enter into this Settlement Agreement providing, subject to the approval of the Court, for the Settlement of the claims herein described against The City of Jennings;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed the above-captioned class action lawsuit ("Litigation") against the Defendant The City of Jennings ("Defendant") alleging that Defendant had violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights under color of state law by incarcerating them and others similarly situated in the City of Jennings Jail because they could not afford to pay debts allegedly owed from traffic and other minor offenses and by causing the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to be subjected to inhumane conditions of confinement in the City of Jennings Jail;
WHEREAS, Defendant has denied and continues to deny Plaintiffs' claims, and Defendant denies any wrongdoing or liability of any kind to Plaintiffs or to any member of the class (as defined hereinafter).

WHEREAS, the Parties to this Settlement Agreement have conducted and continue to conduct a thorough examination and investigation of the facts and law relating to the matters in this Litigation;

WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs and The City of Jennings have concluded that Settlement is desirable in order to avoid the time, expense, and inherent uncertainties of defending prolonged litigation and to resolve finally and completely all pending and potential claims of the Plaintiffs and all Class Members relating to the alleged conduct involved in this Litigation;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel (as defined hereinafter) recognize the costs and risks of prosecuting this Litigation, and believe that it is in their interest, and the interest of all Class Members, to resolve this Litigation, and any and all claims against Defendant The City of

Jennings, as well as all city employees who may have devised, promulgated or enforced the policy (as defined hereinafter) or participated in the conduct that is the subject of this Settlement Agreement;
WHEREAS, substantial, adversarial settlement negotiations have taken place between the Parties, including mediation conducted by Richard Sher, and, as a result, this Settlement Agreement has been reached, subject to the Court approval process set forth herein;
WHEREAS, the Parties believe that this Settlement Agreement offers significant benefits to Class Members and is fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interest of Class Members;
WHEREAS, this Settlement Agreement is made and entered into by and among the City of Jennings and Plaintiffs Samantha Jenkins, Edward Brown, Keilee Fant, Byeon Wells, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jr., and Tonya Deberry individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons (the "Class") for purposes of settlement. The Class Members are defined as:
All persons who were placed and/or kept in the custody of the City of Jennings Jail after being detained pursuant to a warrant issued by the City of Jennings Municipal Court arising from the nonpayment of a previously imposed fine or court costs and who were allegedly subjected to inhumane conditions of confinement in the City of Jennings Jail. The Class Period is from February 8, 2010 to September 16,2015.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated and agreed, by and between the undersigned as follows:
I. DEFINITIONS
As used in this Settlement Agreement, the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below. Where appropriate, terms used in the singular shall be deemed to include the plural and vice versa.
A. Class CounseL "Class Counsel" shall mean: Alec Karakatsanis of Equal Justice Under Law, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, South Building, Suite 900, Washington, D.C. 20004; Thomas Harvey, Michael-John Voss and Blake Strode of ArchCity Defenders, 812 North Collins Alley, St. Louis, MO 631 02; and John Ammann, Stephen Hanlon and Brendan Roediger of St. Louis University School of Law Legal Clinic, 100 North Tucker Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63101.
B. Claim Form. "Claim Form" shall mean a form in substantially the same form as that attached hereto as Exhibit A.
C. Class Members. "Class Members" refers to all persons who, during the Class Period, were placed and/or kept in the custody of the City of Jennings Jail after being detained pursuant to a warrant issued by the City of Jennings Municipal Court arising from the nonpayment of a previously imposed fine or court costs and who were allegedly subjected to
2

inhumane conditions the State of Missouri

of confinement in the City of Jennings Jail as REJIS Report provided to the City of Jennings

identified in the summary attached as Exhibit B.

of

D. Claims Period. "Claims Period" shall mean the time period during which claims

may be made by Settlement Class Members, extending from the Notice Date (defined below)

until the date of the Claims

120 days thereafter, including Period falls on a weekend or

weekends and holidays, provided Federal holiday, then the end of

that if the last day the Claims Period

shall be the next following day that is not a weekend or Federal Holiday.

E. Class Period. "Class Period" refers to the period between February 8, 2010 to September 16,2015.

F.

Class List. "Class List" shall be a list of the names and last known mailing

addresses of all Missouri REJIS

members of the Settlement Class as identified Report provided to the City of Jennings attached

in as

the summary Exhibit B.

of

the

State

of

G. Class Notice. "Class Notice" substantially the same form as Exhibit C.

shall

mean

the

Court-approved

form

of

notice

in

H. Class Representatives. "Class Representatives" shall mean Plaintiffs Samantha Jenkins, Edward Brown, Keilee Fant, Byeon Wells, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jr., and Tonya Deberry.

I.

Class Settlement. "Class Settlement" shall mean the terms provided in this

Settlement Agreement.

of

J. Missouri,

Court. "Comi" shall mean the The Honorable Carol E. Jackson,

United States District or her duly appointed

Court for the Eastern District or designated successor.

K. Defendant. "Defendant" shall mean The City of Jennings and shall include all ptcchiirtetoyymsueautmbtljogperalcntoteeydoyesfeo,tsrh,aiensandgSfeoemnrtcttuslene,dmiactpiehpnpeatolpAinjougtledridecgeyeams(naedosnfted.tlehefceinteCedditoyhfeforiecfiiJnaelasnf,tnejiarn)igloes,rrsMp, acirsotsircorieupcratiitoewdnhioonffmtihcaeeyrcsho, anpvdreouscdetectvuhitasoterdiss,,

L. Defendant's Counsel. "Defendant's Counsel" shall mean D. Keith Henson of Paule, Camazine & Blumenthal, P.C., 165 North Meramec Ave., Suite 110, Clayton, MO 63105.
M. Distribution Amount. "Distribution Amount" shall mean the amount available from the Settlement Fund after payment of attorneys' fees and expenses and incentive awards to Class Representatives.

which

N. the

Effective Date. "Effective Date" settlement has finally been approved

shall mean thirty (30) days from the date on by the Court, and/or the date on which any

appeals from final approval are resolved, whichever is later.

which

0. Final the Court will

Approval Hearing. "Final Approval consider and finally decide whether to

Hearing" shall mean the enter the Final Judgment.

hearing

at

3

P. Final Judgment. "Final Judgment" shall mean the Court order that ultimately certifies the Class, approves this Settlement Agreement, approves payment of attorneys' fees and expenses, approves incentive awards to Class Representatives and the distribution amount, and makes such other final rulings as are contemplated by this Settlement Agreement in substantially the same form as Exhibit D.
Q. Jail. The City of Jennings Jail. R. Litigation. "Litigation" shall mean the above captioned lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri as No. 4:15-CV-00252-CEJ. S. Mediator. The "Mediator" shall mean Richard Sher of Sher Corwin Winters LLC, 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63105. T. Notice Program. "Notice Program" shall mean the program for disseminating the Class Notice to Settlement Class Members, including public dissemination of the Summary Notice, in accordance with the terms herein. U. Notice Date. Notice Date shall mean the date upon which Class Notice is mailed to known Class Members in accordance with the terms herein. V. Objection Date. "Objection Date" shall mean the date agreed upon by the Parties or otherwise ordered by the Court by which Settlement Class Members must submit any objection to the Settlement Agreement's terms or provisions and submit any require statements, proof, or other materials and/or argument. W. Opt-Out Deadline. "Opt-Out Deadline" shall mean the date agreed upon by the Plaintiffs and Defendant or otherwise ordered by the Court by which any Settlement Class Members who do not wish to be included in the Settlement Class and participate in the Settlement must complete the acts necessary to properly effect such election to opt-out. X. Opt-Out List. "Opt-Out List" shall mean a written list prepared by the Settlement Administrator of the names of all Settlement Class Members who submit timely Requests for Exclusion or Opt-Out Notices. Y. Opt-Out Notice. Opt-Out Notice or an Opt-Out Form shall mean a Request for Exclusion from the Settlement Class by a Settlement Class Member. Z. Parties. "Parties" shall mean the Plaintiffs and Defendant in this case. AA. Plaintiffs. "Plaintiffs" shall mean Samantha Jenkins, Edward Brown, Keilee Fant, Byeon Wells, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jr., and Tonya Deberry. BB. Preliminary Approval Order. "Preliminary Approval Order" shall mean the Order of the Court initially approving this Settlement Agreement and conditionally certifying a provisional Settlement Class in notably the same form as Exhibit E. CC. Release. "Release" shall mean the release described in Section VII herein.
4

DD. Released Claims. "Release Claims" shall mean and include any and all claims or causes of action by or on behalf of any and all Settlement Class Members (and their predecessors, successors, heirs, administrators, executors, agents, trustees, representatives, and assignees) that are released from bringing any claim or cause of action by the Release described in Section VII herein.
EE. Released Parties. "Released Parties" shall mean all persons or entities against whom Released Claims will be released pursuant to the Release described in Section VII herein.
FF. Request for Exclusion. "Request for Exclusion" shall mean any request by any Settlement Class Member for exclusion from the Class in compliance with Section V herein.
GG. Settlement. "Settlement" shall mean the agreement by the Plaintiffs and Defendant to resolve the Litigation, the terms of which have been memorialized and agreed upon in this Settlement Agreement.
HH. Settlement Administrator. "Settlement Administrator" shall mean the qualified person or entity selected by the Parties and designated in the Preliminary Approval Order to administer the Settlement, including implementing the Notice Program. Neither Plaintiffs nor the Defendant shall have any responsibility for any acts of omissions of the Settlement Administrator. The Parties have agreed to select Dahl Administration, LLC as the Settlement Administrator.
II. Settlement Agreement. "Settlement Agreement" shall mean this Settlement Agreement, including any amendment hereto pursuant to Section X.D hereof, and all the exhibits attached hereto.
JJ. Settlement Class Members. "Settlement Class Members" shall mean all persons in the Class who do not exclude themselves pursuant to Section V herein and those who make a claim to receive a portion of the Distribution Amount.
KK. Settlement Fund. "Settlement Fund" shall mean a fund or funds, governed by terms to be agreed to between Class Counsel and Defendant's Counsel which shall be reserved specifically for this case and be deposited in an account at Wells Fargo Bank opened by the Settlement Administrator within seven (7) days from entry of the Final Judgment. Defendant shall provide documentation verifying that the Settlement Amount is available for distribution to the Settlement Class Members, has been specifically reserved for the sole purpose of this case, and will not be utilized for any other payments or purposes.
LL. Settlement Amount. "Settlement Amount" shall mean the amount of Four Million Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand and 001100 Dollars ($4,750,000.00) to be paid by or on behalf of the Defendant.
MM. Arrest and Jailing Policy. "Arrest and Jail Policy" shall mean the decisions and acts relating to individuals being arrested on failure to appear warrants for failing to pay fines and costs assessed by the Jennings Municipal Court and being incarcerated in the Jennings Jail.
5

II. REQUIRED EVENTS Promptly after execution of this Settlement Agreement by all Parties: 1. Class Counsel and Defendant's Counsel shall use their best efforts to cause the Court to enter the Preliminary Approval Order and the Final Judgment in substantially the forms attached hereto as Exhibits E and D, respectively. 2. The Parties to the this Settlement Agreement shall jointly move for entry of a Preliminary Approval order in substantially the same form as Exhibit E, attached hereto, which by its terms shall: (a) Preliminarily approve the terms of the Settlement Agreement, including the certification of the Class for purposes of this Settlement Agreement only, as within the range of fair, reasonable and adequate Settlement for purposes of issuing notice; (b) Approve the contents ofthe Class Notice and Methods in the Notice Plan; (c) Schedule a Final Approval Hearing to review comments regarding the proposed Class Settlement and to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed Class Settlement and the application for acceptance of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, and to consider whether the Court should issue a Final Judgment (in substantially the same form as Exhibit D) approving the Class Settlement, granting Class Counsel's request for fees and expenses, granting the incentive awards application by the Class Representatives, and dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; and
(d) Make the proper distribution to all Class members by means of delivering payment in the fonn of checks. 3. Class Counsel and Defendant's Counsel will use their best efforts, consistent with the terms of this Settlement Agreement, to promptly obtain a Final Judgment. 4. In the event that the court fails to issue the Preliminary Approval Order or fails to issue the Final Judgment, Class Counsel and Defendant's Counsel agree to use their best efforts, consistent with this Settlement Agreement, to cure any defect identified by the Court provided, however, that in no event shall Defendant be required to agree to any such cure that would increase the cost or burden of this Settlement Agreement to the Defendant. 5. The Parties acknowledge that prompt approval, consummation, and implementation of the Settlement set forth in this Settlement Agreement are essential. The Parties shall cooperate with each other in good faith to carry out the purposes of and effectuate this Settlement Agreement and shall promptly perform their respective obligations set forth herein. Any disputes regarding the Parties' obligations under this paragraph shall be submitted for decision by Judge CarolE Jackson or her designated representative and her decision shall be binding on the Parties.
6

6.

Neither this Settlement Agreement nor any negotiations shall be construed,

offered, received as, or deemed to be, evidence of an admission or concession by Plaintiffs or the

Class of lack of merit, or by Defendant of any liability or wrongdoing whatsoever, whether as

alleged in the Complaint or otherwise with Defendant denying any liability or wrongdoing to the

Plaintiffs and the Class for any claims alleged in the Complaint or otherwise.

7.

In the event that the Court does not approve any part of this Settlement

Agreement and settlement, then this entire Settlement Agreement and settlement shall become

null and void except that Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, and Defendant may agree in writing to

proceed with a modified settlement and apply for Court approval of that modified settlement. In

the event that Settlement Agreement shall become null and void for any reason, the provisions of

Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence will apply to it and all negotiations surrounding it. No

admission of law or fact, or combination thereof, will be found to exist as a result of this

Settlement Agreement. If this Settlement Agreement fails to be approved or otherwise fails to be

consummated in accordance with its terms:

(a) Plaintiffs shall be entitled to continue this action on behalf of themselves and the Class in accordance with the rulings, circumstances, and procedural posture that existed in this case on January 15, 2016, the date on which Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, and Defendant agreed to the terms of this settlement.

(b) Defendant shall retain all rights to continue its defense to this case in accordance with the rulings, circumstances, and procedural posture that existed in this case on January 15, 2016, the date on which Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, and Defendant agreed to the terms of this settlement.

III. SETTLEMENT TERMS

A. Settlement Fund

1. Upon entry of the Final Judgment Order, the Settlement creates a Settlement Fund of Four Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($4,750,000.00). Before distribution to the individual Class Members, 25% of the Settlement Fund will be utilized to pay any and all attorneys' fees and costs subject to court approval. After attorneys' fees and costs have been paid by the Settlement Fund, subject to Court approval, an additional Ten Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($10,000.00) will be distributed to each ofthe eight (8) Class Representatives as incentive awards for being the faces of this Litigation and for the time and energy spent in assisting with the investigation, drafting, and negotiation of this litigation.

2.

Any and all administrative expenses, such as costs of settlement administration,

mailing of Class Notice and Claim Forms to Class Members, providing adequate notification of

Class Notice and Claim Form by way of mail, website, or other media, or other administrative

costs will not be deducted from the above Settlement Fund, but instead shall be paid by the

Defendant through personal funds outside of the Settlement Fund.

3.

The Settlement Fund shall only be used to pay any and all attorneys' fees and

costs, to pay each of the eight (8) Class Representatives their earned incentive awards, to be

7

distributed to the remaining class members utilizing the method set out below, and finally to be distributed to the Friends of Jennings School District Foundation as set out below.
B. Payments to Class Members
1. The Settlement Fund will be distributed as follows: Twenty-five percent (25%) of the Settlement Fund in the amount of One Million One Hundred Eighty-seven Thousand Five Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($1,187,500.00) will pay for any and all attorneys' fees and costs and Eighty Thousand and 001100 Dollars ($80,000.00) will be equally divided and distributed among the eight (8) Class Representatives as incentive awards for initiating this Litigation. The remaining amount will be paid to the Class Members who submit a valid claim and donated to the Friends of Jennings Foundation based on the following calculations:
(a) The total amount remaining in the Settlement Fund after deduction of attorneys' fees and costs and incentive awards will be divided by the total number of days in jail served by potential Class Members. This amount will constitute the per diem damages award. The Parties agree to use the records obtained from the State of Missouri's REJIS system obtained by the City of Jennings and relied upon by the Parties during the mediation negotiations to determine potential Class Members and the number of days spent in jail by potential Class Members with the summary of the records attached as Exhibit B. Those records document a total of 1,967 potential Class Members and 8,359 days spent in jail by potential Class Members.
(b) An initial damages amount will then be calculated for each Class Member who submits a valid claim in an amount arrived at by multiplying the number of days each individual spent in jail by the per diem damage award described in (a).
(c) After the initial calculations for distribution to Class Members who submit a valid claim are deducted from the Settlement Fund, the remaining funds not to exceed the sum of Three Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($300,000.00) shall be donated to the Friends of Jennings School District Foundation (hereinafter "Friends of Jennings").
(d) If there is any amount of the Settlement Fund remammg after payment of attorneys' fees and costs, Class Representative incentive awards, the amount calculated for Class Member distributions, and the donation to the Friends of Jennings, the Parties shall proportion the remaining amount to those Class Members who made claims, again proportioning the calculated distribution based on the number of days spent by each Class Member in jail multiplied times an adjusted per diem damages award. This adjusted per diem damages award will be calculated based upon the total amount remaining in the Settlement Fund after deduction of attorneys' fees and costs, incentive awards, the initial per diem distribution to all Class Members who submit a valid claim and the donation to the Friends of Jennings divided by the total number of days in jail served by the Class Members who submit a valid claim.
8

If any checks are not cashed within two (2) months of the distribution, the Settlement Administrator will notify the Parties of the identities of those Claimants who failed to cash their check. If there is money remaining in the Settlement Fund three (3) months after the payment to the Class Members who make valid claims, then that money will be distributed to the Friends of Jennings.
2. Records have been provided by the Defendant in order to acquire the name and address of each Class Member. The Parties will cause to be mailed to each Class Member the Class Notice and Claim Form with return envelopes for Class Members to mail back. Upon completion of their Claim Form, the Class Members will insert their completed Claim Form into the provided return envelope to mail to the Settlement Administrator.
(a) Once the Settlement Administrator receives all claim forms, the Settlement Administrator shall make a list of the Claimants and calculate the total number of days spent in Jennings Jail by each Claimant relevant to the Class definition. The Parties agree that the Settlement Administrator shall use the official records maintained by the State of Missouri's REJIS system as obtained by the City of Jennings and relied upon by the Parties during mediation with a summary of the records attached as Exhibit B.
(b) The Settlement Adminish·ator shall proportion the distribution of funds to the Class Members by dividing the total amount of money by the number of days in jail served by potential Claimants according to the REJIS records. The total amount of money divided by the total number of days shall be the per diem damage award paid to each Claimant for each day spent in the Jennings Jail.
(c) The per diem damage award for each day spent in the Jennings Jail shall be Four Hundred Sixteen and 61/100 Dollars ($416.61). The per diem damage award is calculated by dividing the Net Settlement Fund after the deduction of attorney fees and costs and incentive awards to the Plaintiffs in the amount of Three Million Four Hundred Eighty-two Thousand Five Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($3,482,500.00) by 8,359 days served by the potential Claimants in jail.
3. The Class List will be prepared and provided by Defendant's counsel to Class Counsel and to the Claims Administrator to facilitate notice to the Class Members as is contained in the summary of the State of Missouri REJIS Report attached as Exhibit B.
4. Both Parties anticipate that late claims may be filed subsequent to the end of the claims period. Late claims may be allowed, if submitted on or before the date of the Final Approval Hearing, for good cause shown as agreed by the Parties; provided, however, that any claims submitted more than twenty (20) days after the end of the claim period shall not be allowed. To the extent that the Parties cannot agree that good cause is shown, the Settlement Administrator shall make the final decision regarding whether to allow a late claim. All late
9

claims will be approved by the Court prior to being paid as part of the distribution of the Settlement.
5. After the Final Approval Hearing described below, the Settlement Administrator shall send checks to each Claimant who submits a valid claim pursuant to the distribution calculated in Section III.(B) within fourteen (14) days of the Effective Date. If after three (3) months a check remains uncashed and money remains in what is left of the Settlement Fund, the remainder shall be donated to the Friends of Jennings.
6. The Parties expressly agree that the funds paid herein are not intended to be payment for economic damages or for punitive damages, but are intended to be payment for damages on account of alleged personal injuries, including, but not limited to, bodily injury, mental and emotional distress, and pain and suffering, arising from an occurrence, within the meaning of Section 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Despite the Parties' intentions, the Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, Defendant's Counsel, and Defendant make no representations regarding the taxability or non-taxability of any payments made hereunder, and the Parties agree that Defendant, the Settlement Administrator, and Defendant's insurers shall not be responsible for payment of any taxes on the amounts paid hereunder to Plaintiffs, Class Representatives, Class Members, or Class Counsel. All payment of taxes or other assessments to the state or federal authorities on the amounts paid under this Settlement Agreement, if any, shall be the sole responsibility of Plaintiffs, Class Representatives, Class Members, and Class Counsel with respect to their pmiion of the Settlement Funds; Plaintiffs, Class Representatives, Class Members, and Class Counsel hereby agree to indemnify and hold hannless Defendant, the Settlement Administrator, and Defendant's insurers from any such liability for taxes or other assessments to the state or federal authorities on amounts paid under this Settlement Agreement.
C. Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
Class Counsel will petition the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and costs in the amount not to exceed 25% of the entire Settlement Amount. The Parties agree that Defendant considers such an amount to be reasonable in light of the effort expended in investigating this case, the significance of the relief obtained for thousands of Class Members, and the efficiency with which negotiation of equitable and compensatory relief was obtained. The Parties therefore agree jointly to ask the Court to make such an award. Any award of attorneys' fees includes any and all applicable taxes, court costs, or other fees. In the event that the Court does not approve the requested amount of attorneys' fees and costs of twenty-five percent (25%) of the Settlement Fund, and approves some lesser amount, that fact will not void this Settlement Agreement; provided, however, that Class Counsel reserves the right to appeal any such decision. The Parties agree that the Settlement will proceed as specified in this Agreement regardless of the amount of attorneys' fees and costs approved and awarded by the Court. Class Counsel will be paid for their attorneys' fees and costs approved by the Court within ten (1 0) days of the Effective Date.
D. Forgiveness of Fines and Costs
As part of the consideration for this Settlement, Defendant will forgive all fines and costs assessed by the City of Jennings Municipal Court against all Class Members identified in the
10

summary of the State of Missouri REJIS records attached as Exhibit B who receive a distribution from the Settlement Fund pursuant to a valid claim approved by the Settlement Administrator.
IV. NOTIFICATION TO CLASS MEMBERS A. Responsibilities of the Settlement Administrator 1. The Parties shall appoint Dahl Administration, LLC to serve as the Settlement Administrator who will fulfill various duties described more in detail below including implementing the terms set out in this Settlement Agreement and the Notice Program. 2. The Settlement Administrator shall be responsible for: mailing Class Notice to every Class Member, mailing a Claim Form to every Class Member, posting the Class Notice in the Jennings Jail and Jennings City Hall, providing access to copies of Claim Forms in the Jennings Jail and Jennings City Hall, uploading the Class Notice and Claim Forms to the World Wide Web by means of a website managed by the Settlement Administrator, distributing notice through publications in the St. Louis American on at least one day per week for three consecutive weeks commencing on the Notice Date , distributing payments to the Settlement Class Members, and otherwise administering the Notice Program. The Settlement Administrator will maintain an appropriate insurance policy to protect against any violation of its fiduciary duty to the Court, Class Members, Class Counsel, and Defendant's Counsel. The Notice Program shall comply with all requirements of applicable law.

3. The Settlement Administrator will provide information about the Settlement to Class Members, including notice and claims documents, court documents, and a copy of the Settlement Agreement on a settlement website.

B. Notice

1. Beginning no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the Preliminary Order Approving Settlement ("Notice Date"), the Settlement Administrator shall initiate the Notice Program. Such Notice Program will be completed with immediacy in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Prior to the Final Approval Hearing, Plaintiffs and/or the Settlement Administrator shall serve and file a sworn statement attesting to compliance with the provisions of this section.

2. Notice will be provided to the Class by direct mailing of Class Notice and a Claim Form to all potential Class Members at their last known or readily ascertainable address. Defendant shall provide the summary of the State of Missouri REJIS Repmi attached as Exhibit B to the Settlement Administrator in order to commence the Notice Program.

3. Jennings.

Additional notice shall also be posted on the internet on the website of the City of

4. Additional notice will be provided to the Class Members by way of posting the Class Notice and Claim Form at the Jennings Jail and Jennings City Hall.

11

5. The Settlement Administrator shall also provide a copy of the Class Notice and Claim Form to any person who inquires through means of written communication, by way of the toll-free telephone number established by the Settlement Administrator, and by way of e-mail communication also established by the Settlement Administrator. The Settlement Administrator will further upload downloadable and printable copies of notices, Claim Forms, court decisions, the Settlement Agreement, and information to Class Members through the Settlement Website at a mutually agreed upon address.
6. If, after the initial mailing, any Class Notices are returned as undeliverable, the Settlement Administrator will make reasonable efforts to attempt to locate the relevant Settlement Class Members by way of national locator database or contacting the Jennings Jail/ relevant City of Jennings' employee to find a potential new address. In the event a new address is located, the Settlement Administrator will ensure another Class Notice and Claim Form is mailed to the new address.
7. Prior to the Final Approval Hearing, the Settlement Administrator shall provide an affidavit to the Court, with a copy to Class Counsel and Defendant's Counsel, recounting all actions taken to provide Notice of the Settlement. The Settlement Administrator will further provide an affidavit recounting any and all activity on the Settlement Website, including number of visitors and number of documents downloaded, and any and all activity through correspondence of e-mail or the toll-free telephone number between the Settlement Administrator and the potential Class Members.
8. The Settlement Administrator (and any person retained by the Settlement Administrator) shall sign a confidentiality agreement in a form agreed upon by the Parties, which shall provide that the names, addresses and other information about specific Class Members and/or specific Class Members that is provided to it by Defendant, Class Counsel, or by individual Class Members, shall be treated as confidential and shall be used only the Settlement Administrator as required by this Settlement Agreement.
9. Claim Forn1s must be postmarked on or before the 120th day from the Notice Date in order to be considered timely submitted, however, Claim Forms postmarked after this date shall be accepted by the Parties if received before the Final Approval Hearing and submitted in good faith within twenty (20) days after the 120th day from the Notice Date.
10. The Settlement Administrator will advise Class and Defendant Counsel with information regarding who has filed Claim Forms within five (5) business days of receipt of a Claim Form. If information on a submitted Claim Form is insufficient, unreadable, incomplete, or left blank, the Settlement Administrator shall contact the person who submitted the Claim Form and aid the person in completing the information.
11. Defendant shall have the right to challenge the submitted Claim Forn1s as not meeting the Class definition.
12. The Settlement Administrator shall have final authority to determine whether individuals who have submitted Claims Forms qualify as Settlement Class Members.
12

V. REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION BY SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS
A. The provisions of this paragraph shall apply to any Request for Exclusion. Any Settlement Class Member may make a Request for Exclusion by mailing or delivering such request in writing to the Settlement Administrator within forty-five (45) days from the Notice Date. Any Request for Exclusion must be postmarked no later than the Opt-Out Deadline. Any Request for Exclusion shall include the name, address, and telephone number of the person requesting exclusion and include a clear statement indicating that person chooses to be excluded from the Settlement, does not wish be a Settlement Class Member and chooses to be excluded from any judgment entered pursuant to the Settlement.
B. Any Settlement Class Member who submits a timely Request for Exclusion may not file an objection to the Settlement and shall be deemed to have waived any rights or benefits under this Settlement Agreement.
C. Not later than three (3) business days after the deadline for submission of Requests for Exclusion, the Settlement Administrator shall provide an Opt-Out List to Class Counsel and to Defendant's Counsel together with copies of each Request for Exclusion. Class Counsel and Defendant's Counsel shall jointly report the names appearing on the Opt-Out List to the Court at the time of the Final Approval Hearing.
D. Class Counsel agrees that they will not represent any individual who opts out fi·om the Settlement in asserting claims against the Defendant that are the subject of this Agreement.
VI. OBJECTIONS BY SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS
A. After the Settlement Class has been determined and certified, a period of time will be established in order to allow for approved Settlement Class Members to make Objections to the Settlement. Any Settlement Class Member who wishes to be heard orally at the Final Approval Hearing, or who wishes for any objection to be considered, must file a written notice of objection by the Objection Date. Any Objection must be postmarked no later than the Objection Date. Such objection shall state the name, address and telephone number of the person, as well as a detailed statement of each objection asserted, including the grounds for objection and reasons for appearing and being heard, together with any documents said person wishes to be considered in support of the objection.
B. No objecting Class Member will be permitted to appear and object at the Final Approval Hearing unless he or she has timely filed and served a written objection and filed a Notice of Intention to Appear with the Court. Class Members or their attorneys intending to make an appearance at the Final Approval Hearing must, no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the Final Approval Hearing, file with the Court and serve Class Counsel and Defendant's counsel with a Notice of Intention to Appear that (i) states how much time the Class Member and/or his/her attorney anticipates needing to present his or her objection; (ii) identifies by name, address, and telephone number the Class Member making the objection, and a summary of the testimony supporting the objection; (iii) identifies by name, address, and telephone number all witnesses the Class Member and/or his/her attorney intends to present testimony from, including
13

a summary of the testimony; (iv) identifies all exhibits the Class Member and/or his/her attorney intends to offer in support of the objection(s) and attaches complete copies of all exhibits; and (v) contains the signature of the Class Member making the objection and a statement under penalty of perjury that the individual is a member of the Class, i.e. that the individual was placed and/or kept in the custody of the City of Jennings Jail during the relevant time period.
C. Upon certification of the Class, the Settlement Administrator shall cause information regarding a Settlement Class Member's right to make an objection and instructions on how to make an objection to be mailed to each Certified Class Member. This information will include instructions for a Settlement Class Member to state an objection, their grounds for the objection, an option to request to be heard at the Final Approval Hearing if they so desire, and instructions regarding the objection process.
D. The agreed-upon procedures and requirements for filing objections in connection with the Final Approval Hearing are intended to ensure the efficient administration ofjustice and the orderly presentation of any Settlement Class Members' Objections to the Settlement Agreement, in accordance with such Settlement Class Members' due process rights. The Preliminary Approval Order and Class Notice will require all Settlement Class Members who have any objections to file such notice of objection or request to be heard, with the Clerk of the Court. Upon such filing, the Clerk of the Court shall provide notice of objection or request to be heard, including all papers or evidence in support thereof, upon the Class Counsel and Defendant's Counsel. The Preliminary Approval Order will further provide that objectors who fail to properly or timely file their objections with the Clerk of the Court shall not be heard during the Final Approval Hearing, nor shall the Court consider their Objections.
E. In accordance with law, only Settlement Class Members who have objected to the Settlement pursuant to the terms above may appeal any Final Judgment. The proposed Final Judgment shall provide that any Settlement Class Member who wishes to appeal the Final Judgment, even though appeal will delay the distribution of the Settlement to the Class, shall post a bond with this Court in an amount to be determined by the Court as a condition of prosecuting such an appeal.
VII. RELEASE, DISMISSAL OF ACTION, AND JURISDICTION OF COURT A. By this Settlement Agreement and specifically as provided in this Paragraph,
Defendant, and all of its respective affiliates, predecessors, operating units, related corporations, successors and assigns, officers, agents, representatives, insurers, and all of their past, present, and future employees, supervisors, officers, directors, agents, elected and appointed officials, municipal administrators, correction officers, municipal judges, jailers, attorneys and any person or entity which can be held jointly and severally liable with any of them ("Released Parties"), are released from any and all claims, causes of action, liabilities, demands, and causes of action, fixed or contingent, that were, could have been, or should have been asserted by the Plaintiffs or any member of the Class against the Released Parties based upon or related in any way to the arrest and jailing policy, unpaid court debts, and conditions of confinement in the City of Jennings Jail that are the subject of the Litigation and for any claim asserted, or that could have been asserted in the Litigation and the Complaint in Case No. 4: 15-CV-00252-CEJ arising out of
14

the arrest and jail policy, unpaid court debts, and conditions of confinement in the City of Jennings Jail ("Released Claims").
B. This Settlement Agreement does not affect the rights of Settlement Class Members who timely and properly exclude themselves from the Settlement.
C. The administration and implementation of the Settlement as exemplified in this Settlement Agreement shall be under the authority of the Court. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to protect, preserve, and implement the Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited to, the Release. The Court expressly retains jurisdiction in order to enter such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate in administering and implementing the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited to orders enjoining Settlement Class Members from prosecuting claims that have been released pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
D. Said Release as explained above shall be in effect upon the Effective Date of this Settlement. Further, Class Counsel shall be paid their Court-approved attorneys' fees and cost within ten (10) days of the Effective Date.
E. Upon the Effective Date and the conclusion of any appeals:
(i) The Settlement Agreement shall be exclusive remedy for any and all Released Claims of Class Members;
(ii) The Released Parties shall not be subject to liability or expense of any kind to any settlement Class Members or their successors, predecessors, or assigns except as set forth herein;
(iii) Class Members and their successors, predecessors, and assigns shall be permanently barred from initiating, asserting, or prosecuting any and all Released Claims against any Released Party in any federal or state court in the United States or any other tribunal; and
(iv) The Plaintiffs and the Defendant shall file a Stipulation ofDismissal ofthe lawsuit with prejudice with each Party to be responsible for and pay their own costs and attorney fees.
F. Tolling of Statute of Limitations. Defendant agrees that, with respect to any claims asserted in the Litigation that are subsequently asserted by any member of the Class who has properly opted out of the Settlement, Defendant shall not assert any statute of Limitations, repose, or laches defense unless such defense (i) existed as of February 8, 2015, the date this class action was filed, or (ii) arose after a Request for Exclusion was effected pursuant to Section V, or (iii) a combination thereof.
VIII. INCENTIVE AWARDS TO CLASS REPRESENTATIVES
Given the efforts of the named Plaintiffs for being the faces of this Litigation on behalf of the Class, Defendant will not oppose an application for awards of Ten Thousand and 00/100
15

Dollars ($10,000.00) each on behalf of the Class Representatives Samantha Jenkins, Edward Brown, Keilee Pant, Byeon Wells, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jr., and Tonya Deberry. It is agreed between the Parties that the Class Representatives provided considerable assistance to Class Counsel in their prosecution of this action. Class Representatives are also eligible for payment through the distribution of the Settlement Fund once attorneys' fees and costs and their incentive awards have been allocated.
IX. REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS
A. Class Counsel, who are signatories hereof, represent and warrant that they have the authority, on behalf of Plaintiffs, to execute deliver, and perform this Settlement Agreement and to perform all of the transactions contemplated hereby. This Settlement Agreement has been validly executed and delivered by Class Counsel and Plaintiffs and constitutes their legal, valid, and binding obligation.
B. Defendant, through their undersigned attorney, represents and wan·ants that they have the authority to execute, deliver, and perform this Settlement Agreement and to perform all of this Settlement Agreement and performance by them of the actions contemplated hereby have been duly authorized by all necessary corporate action on part of Defendant. This Settlement Agreement has been validly executed and delivered by Defendant and constitutes their legal, valid, and binding obligation.
X. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. This Settlement Agreement, and the exhibits and related documents hereto, are not, and shall not at any time be construed or be deemed to be, or to evidence, any admission against or concession by Defendant with respect to any wrongdoing, fault, or admission of any kind whatsoever, regardless of whether or not this Settlement Agreement results in entry of a Final Judgment as contemplated herein. Any payment of monies on behalf of the Defendant, or any other action taken, by the Defendant pursuant to any provision of this Settlement Agreement, shall not at any time be construed or deemed to be, or to evidence, any admission against or concession by Defendant with respect to any wrongdoing, fault, or admission of any kind whatsoever, regardless of whether or not this Settlement Agreement results in the entry of a Final Judgment as contemplated herein. Defendant denies any liability to Plaintiff and to all members of the Class for any claim described in the Settlement Agreement and in the Litigation. This provision shall survive the expiration or voiding of the Settlement Agreement.
B. This Settlement Agreement is entered into only for purposes of Settlement. In the event that the Effective Date does not occur for any reason or the Final Judgment is not entered, then this Settlement Agreement, including any Releases or dismissals hereunder, is cancelled. In the event this Settlement Agreement is cancelled or deemed cancelled, no term or condition of this Settlement Agreement, or any draft thereof, or of the discussion, negotiation, documentation or other part of the Parties' settlement discussions shall have any effect, nor shall any such matter be admissible in evidence for any purpose, or used for any purposes whatsoever in the Litigation or any other litigation, and all Parties shall be restored to their prior positions as if the mediation had never occurred and the Settlement Agreement had not been entered into.
16

C. The heading of the sections and paragraphs of this Settlement Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not be deemed to constitute part of this Settlement Agreement or to affect its interpretation.

D. This Settlement Agreement, including all exhibits attached hereto, may not be modified or amended except in writing signed by all of the Parties or their counsel.
E. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

F. This Settlement Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the substantive laws of Missouri, without giving effect to any choice or conflict of law provision, or rule that would cause the application of the laws of any other jurisdiction.
G. Except as otherwise provided in this Settlement Agreement, each party to this Settlement Agreement shall bear its own costs of the Litigation.

H. If any clause, provision or paragraph of this Settlement Agreement is deemed illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, such illegality, invalidity, or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining clauses, provisions, or paragraphs of this Settlement Agreement, and this Settlement Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegality, invalidity, or unenforceability had not been included herein.

I.

The Parties to this Settlement Agreement reserve the right, by agreement and

subject to the Court's approval, to grant any reasonable time extensions that may be necessary to

fully implement any of the provisions of this Settlement Agreement.

J.

All applications for Court approval or Court orders required under this Settlement

Agreement shall be made on notice to Plaintiffs and Defendant.

K. The determination of the terms of, and the drafting of, this Settlement Agreement, including its exhibits, has been by mutual agreement after mediation, with consideration by and participation of all Parties and their counsel. Since this Settlement Agreement was drafted with the participation of both Parties and their counsel, the presumption that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafter does not apply. Each of the Parties was represented by competent and effective counsel throughout the course of Settlement negotiations and in the drafting and execution of this Settlement Agreement, and there was no disparity in bargaining power among the Parties to this Settlement Agreement. In entering into this Settlement Agreement, none of the Parties relied on advice received from any outside party or their counsel.

L. Integrated Agreement:

1. All of the exhibits to this Settlement Agreement are material and integral parts hereof, and are fully incorporated herein by reference.

17

2.

This Settlement Agreement and exhibits hereto constitute the entire, fully

integrated agreement among the Parties and cancel and supersede prior written and unwritten

agreements and understandings pertaining to the Settlement of this Litigation.

M. Notice:

1. Any notice, request, instruction, or other document to be given by any party to this Settlement Agreement to any other party to this Settlement Agreement (other than Class Notice) shall be in writing and delivered personally or sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid:

If to Defendant: D. Keith Henson of Paule, Camazine & Blumenthal, P.C., 165 North Meramec Ave., Suite 110, Clayton, MO 63105.

If to Class Counsel: Alec Karakatsanis of Equal Justice Under Law, 916 G Street, NW Suite 701, Washington, D.C. 20001; Thomas Harvey, Michael-Johnc Voss and Blake Strode of ArchCity Defenders, 812 North Collins Alley, St. Louis, MO 63102; and John Ammann, Stephen Hanlon and Brendan Roediger of Saint Louis University School of Law Legal Clinic, 100 North Tucker Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63101.

N. Dispute Resolution. The Parties agree that any disputes regarding the tem1s and conditions of this Settlement Agreement shall be submitted to Richard Sher, who shall attempt to mediate such dispute, and if such dispute cannot be resolved via mediation, the Honorable Carol E. Jackson shall decide such dispute. Richard Sher's decision shall be final and binding.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Plaintiffs and Defendant through their respective counsel have executed this Settlement Agreement as of the date(s) indicated on the lines below.

Dated: _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Alec Karakatsanis (E.D. Mo.Bar No. 999294 DC)
Equal Justice Under Law 916 G Street, NW Suite 701 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 681-2409 alec@equaljusticeunderlaw .org

Dated: _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Thomas B. Harvey (MBE #61734)

Dated: - - - - - - - - - -

Michael-John Voss (MBE #61742)

18

Dated: _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Dated: _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Dated: _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Dated: _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Dated: _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Blake A. Strode (MBE #68422) ArchCity Defenders 812 North Collins Alley St. Louis, MO 63102 (855) 724-2489
John J. Ammann (MBE #34308)
Stephen Hanlon (MBE #19340)
Brendan Roediger (E.D.Mo. Bar No. IL 6287213) Saint Louis University School of Law 100 N. Tucker Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63101-1930 (314) 977-2778 broedige@slu.edu Attorneys for PlaintiffS and the Class
D. Keith Henson, #31988MO Paule, Camazine & Blumenthal, P.C. 165 North Meramec Ave., Suite 110 Clayton, MO 63105 (314) 727-2266 khenson@pcblawfirm.com Attorney for Defendant The City ofJennings

19

 
 Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 40 Filed: 12/14/16 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: 540

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

SAMANTHA JENKINS, EDWARD BROWN, )

KEILEE FANT, BYEON WELLS, MELDON )

MOFFIT, ALLISON NELSON, HERBERT )

NELSON, JR., and TONYA DEBERRY, et al. )

) Civil Action No.: 4:15-CV-00252-CEJ

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE CITY OF JENNINGS,

)

)

Defendant.

)

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

The Court has considered the Class Action Settlement Agreement and its Exhibits, the

Parties’ Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, the Parties’ Memorandum

in Support of Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and all other papers

filed in this action. On July 13, 2016, this Court preliminarily approved this settlement. At that

time, this Court certified this case as a class for settlement purposes and the Court appointed

Thomas Harvey, Michael-John Voss and Blake Strode of ArchCity Defenders; Alec Karakatsanis of Civil Rights Corps1; and John Ammann, Stephen Hanlon and Brendan Roediger

of St. Louis University School of Law Legal Clinic as Class Counsel. On December 14, 2016,

counsel for the parties appeared before the Court for final approval of the settlement.

The matter having been submitted and good cause appearing therefore, the Court finds as

follows:

1 Mr. Karakatsanis was formerly with Equal Justice Under Law. All Class Representatives were informed of the change in Mr. Karakatsanis’s status and have affirmatively agreed to retain Mr. Karakatsanis in his capacity with Civil Rights Corps.
1

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 40 Filed: 12/14/16 Page: 2 of 5 PageID #: 541
1. All defined terms contained herein have the same meaning as set forth in the Class Action Settlement Agreement executed by the Settling Parties and filed with the Court (“Settlement Agreement”).
2. Notice in this case was completed by the administrator, Dahl Inc., a nationally known class-administration firm with significant experience. The Court recognizes and approves the content of the Affidavit provided by Dahl, Inc. regarding the notice attached as Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum in Support of the Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.
3. The Court finds that there were no opt-outs or objections to this settlement. 4. The Court finds that all aspects of Class Notice were accomplished in accordance with this Court’s preliminary approval of the Settlement. 5. The Parties have agreed that 25% of the common fund will be allocated for attorneys’ fees, for a total of $1,187,500. This amount is reasonable given the nature of this case and the work of Class Counsel. This case is complex and involves questions of constitutional law and interpretation as well as issues of sovereign immunity and municipal liability. Class Counsel worked diligently on the case and moved it towards settlement as quickly as practicable. This was a result of aggressive, persistent litigation. Further, the benefits to the Class are significant. Finally, attorneys’ fees were negotiated at arms-length and approved by both Parties, including the Class Representatives. There have been no objections by Class Members. Based on the above, the Court finds that the requested attorneys’ fees are fair and reasonable and should be paid from the settlement. 6. The Court finds that the Class Representative payments of $10,000 each to Samantha Jenkins, Edward Brown, Keilee Fant, Byeon Wells, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson,
2

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 40 Filed: 12/14/16 Page: 3 of 5 PageID #: 542
Herbert Nelson, Jr., and Tonya DeBerry are fair and reasonable and should be paid from the settlement.
7. Further, this Court hereby: a. Finds that all things ordered by this Court in its Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement have been accomplished; b. Finds that Class Counsel have fairly and adequately protected the interests of the Settlement Class; c. Finds that all requirements of statutes, rules, and the United States Constitution necessary to effectuate this Agreement have been met and satisfied; d. Gives final approval to the Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class Members; e. Approves the award of Class Counsel’s attorney fees in the amount of $1,187,500 and Class Representative compensation in the amount of $10,000 per Class Representative pursuant to the Settlement Agreement; f. Recognizes that by entering into the Settlement Agreement, Defendant City of Jennings has not admitted any wrongdoing or liability on its part and denies the same. The Court recognizes that the Settlement Agreement between the Parties is a compromise of disputed claims; and g. Recognizes that Class Counsel have done an admirable job of representing the interests of the Class; Class Representatives have represented the Class fairly and adequately, giving up their time to secure relief that will benefit
3

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 40 Filed: 12/14/16 Page: 4 of 5 PageID #: 543
thousands of people; counsel for the Defendant City of Jennings has provided excellent representation for his client; thus, final approval is in the best interest of the Parties and the Class. Good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Settlement Agreement is given final approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate for the settlement of the claims of the Class Members. 2. The Parties will comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement with the terms of the Settlement being incorporated in this Order. 3. All members of the Settlement Class, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns are bound by this Final Order. The Class is defined as: All persons who were placed and/or kept in the custody of the City of Jennings Jail after being detained pursuant to a warrant issued by the City of Jennings Municipal Court arising from the nonpayment of a previously imposed fine or court costs and who were allegedly subjected to inhuman conditions of confinement in the City of Jennings Jail. The Class Period is from February 8, 2010 to September 16, 2015. 4. The Defendant City of Jennings, and all of its respective affiliates, predecessors, operating units, related corporations, successors and assigns, officers, agents, representatives, insurers, and all of their past, present, and future employees, supervisors, officers, directors, agents, elected and appointed officials, municipal administrators, correction officers, municipal judges, jailers, attorneys and any person or entity which can be held jointly and severally liable with any of them (Released Parties), are released from any and all claims, liabilities, demands, and causes of action, fixed or contingent, that were, could have been, or should have been asserted by the Plaintiffs or any member of the Class against the Released Parties based upon or related in any way to the arrest and jailing policy, unpaid court debts, and conditions of confinement in the City of Jennings Jail that are the subject of the litigation and for any claim
4

Case: 4:15-cv-00252-CEJ Doc. #: 40 Filed: 12/14/16 Page: 5 of 5 PageID #: 544

asserted, or that could have been asserted in the Litigation and the Complaint in Case No. 4:15CV-0252-CEJ arising out of the arrest and jail policy, unpaid court debts, and conditions of confinement in the City of Jennings Jail (“Released Claims”).
5. In the event that the Effective Date occurs, counsel for the parties shall file a joint stipulation for dismissal of this action with prejudice, and all Class Members will be deemed to have forever released and discharged the Released Claims described in paragraph 4. In the event that the Effective Date does not occur for any reason whatsoever, the Settlement Agreement shall be deemed null and void and shall have no effect whatsoever.
6. Attorney fees and Class Representative payments are fair and reasonable and should be paid from the settlement pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
7. In the event that the Effective Date occurs, this action will be deemed resolved and shall be dismissed on the merits with prejudice and (except as provided in this Order or in the Settlement Agreement) without costs and attorney fees to any party as against any other.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2016

_______________________ Carol E. Jackson United States District Judge

5

 
 Case: 4:15-cv-252 As of: 03/10/2017 03:29 PM CST 1 of 8
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:15−cv−00252−CEJ

CLOSED

Jenkins et al v. Jennings, Missouri, City of Assigned to: District Judge Carol E. Jackson Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff Samantha Jenkins individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

Date Filed: 02/08/2015 Date Terminated: 02/13/2017 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Alexander G. Karakatsanis CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 916 G Street NW Suite 701 Washington, DC 20001 202−681−2409 Email: alec@civilrightscorps.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan D. Roediger ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 100 N. Tucker Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63101 314−977−2778 Fax: 314−977−1180 Email: broedige@slu.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Ammann ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 100 N. Tucker Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63101 314−977−2778 Fax: 314−977−3334 Email: ammannjj@slu.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael−John Voss ARCHCITY DEFENDERS 1210 Locust St. St. Louis, MO 63103 855−724−2489 x2 Fax: 855−724−2479 x2 Email: mjvoss@archcitydefenders.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas B. Harvey ARCHCITY DEFENDERS 1210 Locust St. St. Louis, MO 63103 314−482−3342 Fax: 314−925−1307 Email: tharvey@archcitydefenders.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:15-cv-252 As of: 03/10/2017 03:29 PM CST 2 of 8

Plaintiff Edward Brown
Plaintiff Keilee Fant

Blake Alexander Strode ARCHCITY DEFENDERS 1210 Locust St. St. Louis, MO 63103 855−724−2489 x1015 Fax: 314−925−1307 Email: bstrode@archcitydefenders.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander G. Karakatsanis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan D. Roediger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Ammann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael−John Voss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Blake Alexander Strode (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander G. Karakatsanis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan D. Roediger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Ammann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael−John Voss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 4:15-cv-252 As of: 03/10/2017 03:29 PM CST 3 of 8

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Blake Alexander Strode (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Byeon Wells

represented by Alexander G. Karakatsanis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brendan D. Roediger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John J. Ammann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael−John Voss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Blake Alexander Strode (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Meldon Moffit

represented by Alexander G. Karakatsanis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brendan D. Roediger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John J. Ammann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael−John Voss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Blake Alexander Strode (See above for address)

Case: 4:15-cv-252 As of: 03/10/2017 03:29 PM CST 4 of 8

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Allison Nelson

represented by Alexander G. Karakatsanis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brendan D. Roediger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John J. Ammann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael−John Voss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Blake Alexander Strode (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Herbert Nelson, Jr.

represented by Alexander G. Karakatsanis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brendan D. Roediger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John J. Ammann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael−John Voss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Blake Alexander Strode (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 4:15-cv-252 As of: 03/10/2017 03:29 PM CST 5 of 8

Tonya DeBerry

represented by Alexander G. Karakatsanis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brendan D. Roediger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John J. Ammann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael−John Voss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas B. Harvey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Blake Alexander Strode (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Jennings, Missouri, City of

represented by D. Keith Henson PAULE AND CAMAZINE, P.C. 165 N. Meramec Ave. Suite 110 Clayton, MO 63105 314−727−2266 Fax: 314−727−2101 Email: khenson@pcblawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/08/2015
02/09/2015 02/09/2015 02/18/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against defendant All Defendants with receipt number 0865−4717474, in the amount of $400 Jury Demand,, filed by Allison Nelson, Keilee Fant, Herbert Nelson, Jr, Edward Brown, Tonya DeBerry, Samantha Jenkins, Byeon Wells, Meldon Moffit. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Original Filing Form, # 3 Summons, # 4 Notice of Process Server)(Karakatsanis, Alexander) (Entered: 02/08/2015)
2 NOTICE OF PROCESS SERVER by Plaintiffs Edward Brown, Tonya DeBerry, Keilee Fant, Samantha Jenkins, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jr, Byeon Wells Process Server: Elizabeth Washam (JMC) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
Case Opening Notification: 1 Summons(es) issued. The summons was emailed to ammannjj@slu.edu. Judge Assigned: U.S. District Judge Carol E. Jackson. (JMC) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
3 ENTRY of Appearance by John J. Ammann for Plaintiffs Edward Brown, Tonya DeBerry, Keilee Fant, Samantha Jenkins, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jr, Byeon Wells. (Ammann, John) (Entered: 02/18/2015)

Case: 4:15-cv-252 As of: 03/10/2017 03:29 PM CST 6 of 8

02/18/2015 02/26/2015 02/26/2015 02/27/2015 03/25/2015 03/27/2015
05/22/2015 06/29/2015 06/30/2015
08/26/2015
09/02/2015
09/08/2015 09/16/2015

4 SUMMONS Returned Executed filed by Allison Nelson, Keilee Fant, Herbert Nelson, Jr, Edward Brown, Tonya DeBerry, Samantha Jenkins, Byeon Wells, Meldon Moffit. Jennings, Missouri, City of served on 2/9/2015, answer due 3/2/2015. (Ammann, John) (Entered: 02/18/2015)
5 ENTRY of Appearance by D. Keith Henson for Defendant Jennings, Missouri, City of. (Henson, D.) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
6 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by Defendant Jennings, Missouri, City of. (Henson, D.) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
7 Docket Text ORDER as to Jennings, Missouri, City of ; GRANTING 6 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by Defendant Jennings, Missouri, City of. ; Jennings, Missouri, City of answer due 4/1/2015.. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 2/27/15. (KKS) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
8 Joint MOTION to Stay All Proceedings in this Case by Defendant Jennings, Missouri, City of. (Henson, D.) (Entered: 03/25/2015)
9 ORDER:IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties joint motion to stay all proceedings until June 29, 2015 [Doc. # 8] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report on June 29, 2015. ( Status Report due by 6/29/2015.) Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 3/27/15. (JAB) (Entered: 03/27/2015)
10 ENTRY of Appearance by Michael−John Voss for Plaintiffs Edward Brown, Tonya DeBerry, Keilee Fant, Samantha Jenkins, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jr, Byeon Wells. (Voss, Michael−John) Modified attorney's name on 5/26/2015 (KKS). (Entered: 05/22/2015)
11 MOTION to Stay and Joint STATUS REPORT Motion to Stay All Proceedings for an Additional 90 Days by Jennings, Missouri, City of. (Henson, D.) Modified on 6/30/2015−added motion to stay to event type (JAB). (Entered: 06/29/2015)
12 ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' joint motion to stay all proceedings for an additional 90 days until September 29, 2015 [Doc. # 11 ] is granted.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report on September 29, 2015. ( Status Report due by 9/29/2015.). Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 6/30/15. (KKS) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
13 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment Joint Motion for Entry of Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by Plaintiffs Edward Brown, Tonya DeBerry, Keilee Fant, Samantha Jenkins, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jr, Byeon Wells. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Joint Memorandum of Law, # 2 Appendix US DOJ Statement of Interest, # 3 Appendix Order Velda City, # 4 Appendix TRO Issued Dothan, # 5 Exhibit Agreement to Settle All Equitable Claims, # 6 Exhibit Jennings Ordinance 2367, # 7 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Harvey, Thomas) (Entered: 08/26/2015)
14 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is set for a telephone conference on Friday, September 4, 2015, at 10:30 a.m. The court will initiate the call. Telephone Conference set for 9/4/2015 10:30 AM in Chambers before District Judge Carol E. Jackson. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 9/2/15. (JAB) (Entered: 09/02/2015)
15 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carol E. Jackson: Telephone Conference held on 9/8/2015. (FTR Gold: No.) (JAB) (Entered: 09/08/2015)
16 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the joint motion for entry of final declaratory and injunctive relief and joint stipulation for dismissal [Doc. # 13] is granted in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties joint request for entry of an injunction consistent with their settlement agreement is granted. The injunction will be entered separately. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in accordance with the parties stipulation, all equitable claims not covered by the settlement agreement are dismissed. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 9/16/2015. (KMS) (Entered: 09/16/2015)

Case: 4:15-cv-252 As of: 03/10/2017 03:29 PM CST 7 of 8

09/16/2015 09/28/2015 10/01/2015 01/04/2016 01/05/2016
02/01/2016 02/02/2016
03/15/2016 03/15/2016 03/28/2016 04/18/2016 04/20/2016 06/20/2016 06/23/2016 07/08/2016

17 PERMANENT INJUNCTION. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 9/16/2015. (KMS) (Entered: 09/16/2015)
18 STATUS REPORT and Motion to Stay all Proceedings for an Additional 90 Days by Jennings, Missouri, City of. (Henson, D.) Modified event to a motion on 9/30/2015 (KKS). (Entered: 09/28/2015)
19 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties joint motion to extend the stay of proceedings until December 28, 2015, [Doc. # 18 ] is granted. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 10/1/15. (JAB) (Entered: 10/01/2015)
20 MOTION to Stay All Proceedings for an Additional 90 Days and JOINT STAUTUS REPORT by Jennings, Missouri, City of. (Henson, D.) Modified on 1/5/2016−changed event to Motion (JAB). (Entered: 01/04/2016)
21 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties joint motion to stay all proceedings for an additional 90 days [Doc. # 20 ] is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the stay in this matter is extended until February 1, 2016. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report on February 1, 2016. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 1/5/16. (JAB) (Entered: 01/05/2016)
22 Joint MOTION to Stay by Plaintiffs Edward Brown, Tonya DeBerry, Keilee Fant, Samantha Jenkins, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jr, Byeon Wells. (Strode, Blake) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
23 ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' joint motion to stay all proceedings for an additional 45 days [Doc. # 22 ] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the stay in this matter is extended until March 15, 2016. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report on March 15, 2016. Status Report due by 3/15/2016. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 2/2/16. (KKS) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
24 STATUS REPORT by Edward Brown, Tonya DeBerry, Keilee Fant, Samantha Jenkins, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jr, Byeon Wells. (Strode, Blake) (Entered: 03/15/2016)
25 Joint MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiffs Edward Brown, Tonya DeBerry, Keilee Fant, Samantha Jenkins, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jr, Byeon Wells. (Strode, Blake) (Entered: 03/15/2016)
26 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stay in this matter is extended until April 18, 2016. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report on April 18, 2016. Status Report due by 4/18/2016. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 3/28/2016. (KMS) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
27 STATUS REPORT by Edward Brown, Tonya DeBerry, Keilee Fant, Samantha Jenkins, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jr, Byeon Wells. (Strode, Blake) (Entered: 04/18/2016)
28 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stay in this matter is extended until June 20, 2016. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report on June 20, 2016. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 4/20/16. (JAB) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
29 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by Edward Brown, Tonya DeBerry, Keilee Fant, Samantha Jenkins, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jr, Byeon Wells. (Strode, Blake) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
30 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall have until July 8, 2016 to file a motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 6/23/16. (JAB) (Entered: 06/23/2016)
31 Joint MOTION for Settlement Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement by Plaintiffs Edward Brown, Tonya DeBerry, Keilee Fant, Samantha Jenkins, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jr, Byeon Wells. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment, # 2 Attachment Attached to Ex. 1, # 3 Attachment Attached to Ex. 1, # 4 Attachment Attached to Ex. 1, # 5 Attachment Attached to Ex. 1)(Strode, Blake) (Entered: 07/08/2016)

Case: 4:15-cv-252 As of: 03/10/2017 03:29 PM CST 8 of 8

07/08/2016 07/13/2016 07/21/2016 12/12/2016
12/12/2016 12/13/2016 12/13/2016 12/14/2016 12/14/2016 01/25/2017 02/06/2017 02/10/2017 02/13/2017

32 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 31 Joint MOTION for Settlement Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Plaintiffs Edward Brown, Tonya DeBerry, Keilee Fant, Samantha Jenkins, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jr, Byeon Wells. (Strode, Blake) (Entered: 07/08/2016)
33 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, DIRECTING THE DISSEMINATION OF NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING A FINAL SETTLEMENT HEARING: Good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS) Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 7/13/16. (JAB) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
34 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stay previously entered in this matter is lifted. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 7/21/16. (JAB) (Entered: 07/21/2016)
35 Joint MOTION for Settlement Final Approval of Class Action Settlement by Plaintiffs Edward Brown, Tonya DeBerry, Keilee Fant, Samantha Jenkins, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jr, Byeon Wells. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit Attached to Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit Attached to Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit Attached to Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit Attached to Exhibit 1)(Strode, Blake) Modified on 12/13/2016− Exhibit 3 sealed due to it containing personal identifiers (CLO). (Entered: 12/12/2016)
36 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 35 Joint MOTION for Settlement Final Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Plaintiffs Edward Brown, Tonya DeBerry, Keilee Fant, Samantha Jenkins, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jr, Byeon Wells. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavit)(Strode, Blake) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
37 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall place Exhibit [Doc. #35−3] under seal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have until December 21, 2016, to refile Document #35−3 in a manner that complies with E.D.Mo. L.R. 2.17(A). Response to Court due by 12/21/2016. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 12/13/2016. (CLO) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
38 REDACTION to 35 Joint MOTION for Settlement Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Doc. #35−3 by Edward Brown, Tonya DeBerry, Keilee Fant, Samantha Jenkins, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jr, Byeon Wells. (Strode, Blake) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
39 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carol E. Jackson: Settlement Conference held on 12/14/2016. Parties present for Settlement Conference. Discussion held. Motion 35 Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement is granted. Order to issue. (Court Reporter:Sue Moran) (FTR Gold: No) (CLO) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
40 ORDER granting 35 Final Approval of Class Action Settlement: IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 12/14/2016. (CLO) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
41 STATUS REPORT by Edward Brown, Tonya DeBerry, Keilee Fant, Samantha Jenkins, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jr, Byeon Wells. (Strode, Blake) (Entered: 01/25/2017)
42 AMENDED STATUS REPORT by Edward Brown, Tonya DeBerry, Keilee Fant, Samantha Jenkins, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jr, Byeon Wells. (Strode, Blake) Modified on 2/7/2017 (CLO). (Entered: 02/06/2017)
43 STIPULATION for Dismissal With Prejudice by Plaintiffs Edward Brown, Tonya DeBerry, Keilee Fant, Samantha Jenkins, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jr, Byeon Wells. (Strode, Blake) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
44 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall make an entry in the docket record reflecting the dismissal of this action with prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The parties shall bear their own costs. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 2/13/2017. (CLO) (Entered: 02/13/2017)

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND HEARING
IF YOU WERE KEPT IN THE CITY OF JENNINGS JAIL ON A WARRANT FROM THE CITY OF JENNINGS MUNICIPAL COURT
ARISING FROM THE NONPAYMENT OF A FINE OR COURT COSTS YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT.
A Federal Court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE AND THE ENCLOSED CLAIM FORM CAREFULLY.
• You may be a class member in a proposed settlement class of persons incarcerated in the City of Jennings Jail because they could not afford to pay debts allegedly owed from traffic and other minor offenses and who were allegedly subjected to inhumane conditions of confinement. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (the “Court”) has ordered the issuance of this notice in the lawsuit entitled Jenkins, et al. v. The City of Jennings, 4:15-CV-00252-CEJ. The Defendant denies any wrongdoing or liability of any kind in this lawsuit. The Court has not ruled on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims.
• You may be eligible to obtain a payment based upon the number of days you spent in the City of Jennings jail under the conditions described above during the Class Period of February 8, 2010 to September 16, 2015 if you qualify and submit a valid Claim Form.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT

SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM

The only way to get a cash payment. Postmark or submit your Claim Form by November 24, 2016.

EXCLUDE YOURSELF

Get no settlement benefits. Remove yourself from both the settlement and the lawsuit. Postmark your exclusion request by September 12, 2016.

OBJECT

Write to the Court about why you don’t like the settlement. File and serve your objection by October 25, 2016.

GO TO A HEARING

Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the settlement. File a Notice of Intent to Appear by November 29, 2016.

DO NOTHING Get no cash payment. Give up your rights.

• Your rights and options — and the deadlines to exercise them — are explained in this notice.
• The Court in charge of this litigation still has to decide whether to approve the settlement of this case. Distribution of settlement benefits will be made if the Court approves the settlement and after any appeals are resolved. Please be patient.

QUESTIONS? CALL 1-866-236-6721 TOLL-FREE, OR VISIT www.JenningsSettlement.com. - 1 -

WHAT THIS NOTICE CONTAINS
BASIC INFORMATION ....................................................................................................................3 1. What is this lawsuit about? 2. Who is included in the settlement class?
THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS – WHAT YOU MAY GET .......................................................3 3. Cash from the claim process. 4. What else does the settlement provide?
HOW YOU GET A CASH PAYMENT – SUBMITTING A CLAIM FORM........................... 3-4 5. How can I get a payment? 6. How do I send in a claim? 7. When is the Claim Form due? 8. Who decides my claim? 9. When would I get my payment? 10. What if the fund is too large? 11. What happens if I do nothing at all?
EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT ......................................................... 4-5 12. How do I get out of the settlement?
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU. ......................................................................................5 13. Do I have lawyers in this case? 14. How will the lawyers be paid?
OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT ....................................................................................... 5-6 15. How do I tell the Court that I do not like the settlement? 16. What is the difference between objecting and excluding?
RELEASE OF CLASS MEMBERS’ CLAIMS AND DISMISSAL OF LAWSUIT .....................6 17. In return for these settlement benefits, what am I giving up?
THE FINAL APPROVAL HEARING ......................................................................................... 6-7 18. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the settlement? 19. Do I have to come to the hearing? 20. May I speak at the hearing?
GETTING MORE INFORMATION ................................................................................................7 21. Are there more details about the settlement?
QUESTIONS? CALL 1-866-236-6721 TOLL-FREE, OR VISIT www.JenningsSettlement.com. - 2 -

BASIC INFORMATION
1. What is this lawsuit about? Plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit (“Litigation”) against the Defendant The City of Jennings (“Defendant”) alleging that Defendant had violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights by incarcerating them and others similarly situated in the City of Jennings Jail because they could not afford to pay debts allegedly owed from traffic and other minor offenses and by causing the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to be allegedly subjected to inhumane conditions of confinement in the City of Jennings Jail. Defendant has denied and continues to deny Plaintiffs’ claims, and Defendant denies any wrongdoing or liability of any kind to Plaintiffs or to any member of the class.
2. Who is included in the Settlement Class? The Settlement Class Members include all persons, between February 8, 2010 and September 16, 2015 who:
were placed and/or kept in the custody of the City of Jennings Jail after being detained pursuant to a warrant issued by the City of Jennings Municipal Court arising from the nonpayment of a previously imposed fine or court costs and who were allegedly subjected to inhumane conditions of confinement in the City of Jennings Jail.
SETTLEMENT BENEFITS – WHAT YOU MAY GET
3. Cash from the claims process. Defendant will create a fund of $4.75 million to pay Class Members’ claims, Class Representative Incentive Awards, certain administrative costs, and attorneys’ fees and expenses. You may obtain a cash payment in an amount calculated based upon the number of days you served in jail during the Class Period of February 8, 2010 to September 16, 2015 divided by the total number of days served in jail by potential Class Members during that period if you submit a valid Claim Form postmarked by November 24, 2016. These awards may be subject to pro rata upward or downward adjustment depending on the number of claims approved. Details appear below.
4. What else does the settlement provide? As part of this settlement, Defendant will forgive all fines and costs assessed by the City of Jennings Municipal Court against all Class Members identified in the summary of the State of Missouri REJIS records attached as Exhibit B to the Settlement Agreement who receive a distribution from the Settlement Fund pursuant to a valid claim approved by the Settlement Administrator.
HOW YOU GET A CASH PAYMENT – SUBMITTING A CLAIM FORM
5. How can I get a payment? You must return a Claim Form to get a cash payment. A copy of the Claim Form is included in this Notice Package. Claim Forms may be downloaded from the Settlement website at www.JenningsSettlement.com or you may request a Claim Form by calling 1-866-236-6721 or sending an email request to info@JenningsSettlement.com.
6. How do I send in a claim? The Claim Forms are simple and easy to complete. The Claim Form requires that you provide:
1. Your name; 2. Your current mailing address and telephone number; 3. Your agreement to a statement that you were placed and/or kept in the custody of the City of Jennings Jail after
being detained pursuant to a warrant issued by the City of Jennings Municipal Court arising from the nonpayment of a previously imposed fine or court costs between February 8, 2010 to September 16, 2015; and
QUESTIONS? CALL 1-866-236-6721 TOLL-FREE, OR VISIT www.JenningsSettlement.com. - 3 -

4. Your signature certifying under penalty of perjury that all of the information in your Claim Form is true and correct.
Please return a Claim Form if you think that you have a claim. Returning a Claim Form is the only way to receive a cash payment and potential fine or cost forgiveness from this settlement. No claimant may submit more than one Claim Form. The Settlement Administrator may request additional information if the Claim Form is insufficient to process your claim. Failure to provide any requested documentation may result in the denial of your claim and may limit the type of remedy you receive.
7. When is the Claim Form due?
You must mail your Claim Form so that it is postmarked no later than November 24, 2016. Or you must email it by November 24, 2016.
8. Who decides my claim?
The Claim Forms will be reviewed by an independent Settlement Administrator according to criteria agreed to by the parties.
The Claim Administrator may contact you if it needs additional information or otherwise wants to verify information in your Claim Form.
9. When would I get my payment?
The Court will hold a Final Fairness Hearing at 10:00 a.m. on December 14, 2016 in St. Louis, Missouri to decide whether to approve the settlement. If the Court approves the settlement, after that there may be appeals. It is always uncertain whether these appeals can be resolved, and resolving them can take time, perhaps more than a year. If there are no appeals or other delays, you should be sent your cash payment in approximately 65 days after the Claim Form submission deadline.
10. What if the fund is too large?
After the initial calculations for distribution to Class Members who submit a valid claim are deducted from the Settlement Fund, attorney fees and costs are paid from the Settlement Fund, and Class Representative Incentive Awards are paid from the Settlement Fund, the remaining funds not to exceed the sum of Three Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($300,000.00) will be donated to the Friends of Jennings School District Foundation.
If there is any amount of the Settlement Fund remaining after payment of attorneys’ fees and costs, Class Representative Incentive Awards, the amount calculated for Class Member distributions, and the donation to the Friends of Jennings School District Foundation, the Parties shall proportion the remaining amount to those Class Members who made claims, again proportioning the calculated distribution based on the number of days spent by each Class Member in jail.
11. What happens if I do nothing at all?
You must timely return a valid Claim Form to receive a cash payment or potential fine or cost forgiveness from this settlement. If you do nothing, you will get no money from the settlement. But, unless you exclude yourself, you will not be able to start a lawsuit, continue with a lawsuit, or be part of any other lawsuit against Defendant about the legal issues in this case.
EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT
12. How do I get out of the settlement?
If you do not wish to be included in the Class and receive settlement benefits, you must send a letter stating that you want to be excluded from this lawsuit. Be sure to include your name, address, and telephone number and a clear statement indicating you choose to be excluded from the settlement and do not wish to be a Settlement Class Member and choose to be excluded from any judgment entered pursuant to the settlement.
QUESTIONS? CALL 1-866-236-6721 TOLL-FREE, OR VISIT www.JenningsSettlement.com. - 4 -

You must mail your exclusion request post-marked no later than September 12, 2016 to:
CITY OF JENNINGS SETTLEMENT c/o Dahl Administration P.O. Box 3614
Minneapolis, MN 55403-0614 If you asked to be excluded, you will not get any settlement payment, and you cannot object to the settlement. You will not be legally bound by anything that happens in this lawsuit. You may be able to sue (or continue to sue) Defendant in the future.
If you have a pending lawsuit against Defendant, speak to your lawyer immediately. You may need to exclude yourself from this lawsuit in order to continue your own lawsuit. Remember, the exclusion deadline is September 12, 2016.
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
13. Do I have lawyers in this case? The Court appointed Alec Karakatsanis of Equal Justice Under Law, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, South Building, Suite 900, Washington, D.C. 20004; Thomas Harvey, Michael-John Voss and Blake Strode of ArchCity Defenders, 1210 Locust St, St. Louis, MO 63103; and John Ammann, Stephen Hanlon and Brendan Roediger of St. Louis University School of Law Legal Clinic, 100 North Tucker Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63101 to represent you and other class members. These lawyers are called Class Counsel. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense, and enter your appearance in the lawsuit through your own lawyer. 14. How will the lawyers be paid? Class Counsel will ask the Court to award them attorneys' fees and expenses. Class Counsel will seek attorneys’ fees and costs of up to $1,187,500.
The Class Representatives will also ask the Court to award them an amount not to exceed $10,000 to be distributed to each of the eight (8) Class Representatives for being the faces of this litigation and for the time and energy spent in assisting with the investigation, drafting, and negotiation of this litigation.
These amounts, if approved by the Court, will be paid from the Settlement Fund before any distributions to Class Members who submit a valid claim.
The costs to administer the settlement such as costs of settlement administration, mailing of Class Notice and Claim Forms to Class Members, providing adequate notification of Class Notice and Claim Form by way of mail, website, or other media, or other administrative costs will not be deducted from the above Settlement Fund, but instead shall be paid by the Defendant through personal funds outside of the Settlement Fund.
OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
15. How do I tell the Court that I do not like the settlement? If you are a Class Member, you can object to the settlement if you do not like any part of it and the Court will consider your views. To object, you must file an objection with the Court saying that you object to the settlement in Jenkins, et al. v. The City of Jennings, 4:15-CV-00252-CEJ. The written objection must include: (a) your name, address, telephone number; (b) a detailed statement of each objection asserted, including the grounds for objection and reasons for appearing and being heard; and (c) any documents you wish to be considered in support of your objection. This objection must be filed with the Court and served on Class Counsel and Defense Counsel no later than October 25, 2016.
QUESTIONS? CALL 1-866-236-6721 TOLL-FREE, OR VISIT www.JenningsSettlement.com. - 5 -

Send your objection to:
The Court:
Clerk of the Court United States District Court Eastern District of Missouri Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse 111 South 10th Street, Suite 3.300
St. Louis, MO 63102

Class Counsel:

Defense Counsel:

Alec Karakatsanis Equal Justice Under Law 601 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20004

D. Keith Henson Paule, Camazine, & Blumenthal, P.C.
165 N. Meramec Ave, Suite 110 Clayton, MO 63105

Thomas Harvey Arch City Defenders
1210 Locust St. St. Louis, MO 63103

Brendan Roediger St Louis University School of Law
100 N. Tucker Blvd. St Louis, MO 63101

16. What is the difference between objecting and excluding?
Objecting is telling the Court that you do not like something about the settlement. You can object only if you stay in the Class. Excluding yourself is telling the Court that you do not want to be part of the Class or the lawsuit. You cannot request exclusion and object to the settlement. If you exclude yourself, you have no basis to object because the case no longer affects you.
RELEASE OF CLASS MEMBERS’ CLAIMS AND DISMISSAL OF LAWSUIT
17. In return for these benefits, what am I giving up?
If the Court approves the proposed settlement and you do not request to be excluded from the Class, you must release (give up) all claims that are subject to the Release, and the case will be dismissed on the merits and with prejudice. If you remain in the Class, you may not assert any of those claims in any other lawsuit or proceeding. This includes any other lawsuit or proceeding already in progress. Upon the Court’s approval of the settlement, the Class Members who do not exclude themselves, will release and forever discharge the City of Jennings, Missouri and its past, present, and future appointed and elected officials, employees, agents, representatives, municipal court judges, municipal court administrators, municipal jail administrators, and insurers from any and all claims, demands, debts, liabilities, actions, causes of action of every kind and nature, obligations, damages, losses, and costs, whether known or unknown, actual or potential, suspected or unsuspected, direct or indirect, contingent or fixed, that were or could have been asserted or sought in the lawsuit Jenkins, et al. v. The City of Jennings, 4:15-CV-00252-CEJ relating in any way or arising out of a Class Member being arrested and incarcerated in the City of Jennings Jail for the failure to pay debts owed to the City of Jennings for traffic and other offenses, including claims for conditions of confinement in the Jennings Jail from February 8, 2010 to September 16, 2015.
THE FINAL APPROVAL HEARING
18. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the settlement?
The Judge will hold a Final Approval Hearing at 10:00 a.m. on December 14, 2016 at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse, 111 South 10th Street St. Louis, MO 63102. At this hearing, the Judge will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. If there are objections, the Judge will consider them. The Judge will listen to people who have asked to speak at the hearing. After the hearing, the Judge will decide whether to approve the settlement. We do not know how long this decision will take.
QUESTIONS? CALL 1-866-236-6721 TOLL-FREE, OR VISIT www.JenningsSettlement.com. - 6 -

19. Do I have to come to the hearing?
No. Class Counsel will answer questions the Judge may have. But, you are welcome to come at your own expense. If you submit an objection, you do not have to come to the Court to talk about it. As long as you deliver your written objection on time, the Judge will consider it. You may also pay your own lawyer to attend, but it is not necessary.
20. May I speak at the hearing?
You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the Final Approval Hearing. To do so, you must file with the Court a “Notice of Intention to Appear in Jenkins et al. v. The City of Jennings, 4:15-CV-00252-CEJ.” Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number, your signature and a statement under penalty of perjury that you are a member of the Class (i.e., that you were placed and/or kept in the custody of the City of Jennings Jail during the relevant time period). The Notice of Intention to Appear must also include (i) how much time the Class Member and/or his/her attorney anticipates needing to present his or her objection; (ii) the name, address, and telephone number of the Class Member making the objection, and a summary of the testimony supporting the objection; (iii) the name, address, and telephone number of all witnesses the Class Member and/or his/her attorney intends to present testimony from, including a summary of the testimony, and (iv) the identity of all exhibits the Class Member and/or his/her attorney intends to offer in support of the objection(s), and a complete copy of all exhibits. Your Notice of Intention to Appear must be filed no later than November 29, 2016, and be sent to the Clerk of the Court, Class Counsel, and Defense Counsel at the addresses listed in paragraph 15.
GETTING MORE INFORMATION
21. Are there more details about the settlement?
This notice summarizes the proposed settlement. More details are in the Settlement Agreement. You can get a copy of the Settlement Agreement by writing to the Settlement Administrator or on the internet at www.JenningsSettlement.com.

If you have questions about how to complete a Claim Form, you can call the Claim Administrator at 1-866-236-6721. PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE TO THE COURT FOR INFORMATION OR ADVICE.

DATED: July 27, 2016

/s/ Carol E. Jackson
BY ORDER OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

QUESTIONS? CALL 1-866-236-6721 TOLL-FREE, OR VISIT www.JenningsSettlement.com. - 7 -

 
 Must be postmarked no later than
November 24, 2016.

CLAIM FORM
JENKINS v. CITY OF JENNINGS SETTLEMENT C/O DAHL ADMINISTRATION PO BOX 3614 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55403-0614 Toll-Free: 1-866-236-6721
Website: www.JenningsSettlement.com

This Claim Form has multiple pages. All Sections of the Claim
Form must be completed.

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Please complete all 3 sections of the Claim Form. You must submit all of the required information in order to have a

valid claim. Please return a Claim Form if you think that you have a claim. Returning a Claim Form is the only way to

receive a cash payment and potential fine or cost forgiveness from this settlement. No claimant may submit more

than one Claim Form.

2. Sign and date the declaration in Section 3 below.

3. Return your signed and completed Claim Form postmarked by November 24, 2016 to:

By Mail:

City of Jennings Settlement c/o Dahl Administration

By Email:

PO Box 3614 Minneapolis, MN 55403-0614 info@JenningsSettlement.com

4. QUESTIONS? Visit the settlement website at www.JenningsSettlement.com or call 1-866-236-6721.

SECTION 1: CLASS MEMBER INFORMATION
If your mailing address above is incorrect, please provide updated address information below (IF INCORRECT ABOVE):

MAILING ADDRESS

CITY
Please provide your phone number(s) and email address below (REQUIRED):

STATE

—

—

—

—

DAYTIME PHONE NUMBER

EVENING PHONE NUMBER

ZIP CODE

EMAIL ADDRESS

QUESTIONS? Visit the settlement website at www.JenningsSettlement.com or call 1-866-236-6721.

Must be postmarked no later than
November 24, 2016.

CLAIM FORM
JENKINS v. CITY OF JENNINGS SETTLEMENT C/O DAHL ADMINISTRATION PO BOX 3614 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55403-0614 Toll-Free: 1-866-236-6721
Website: www.JenningsSettlement.com

This Claim Form has multiple pages. All Sections of the Claim
Form must be completed.

SECTION 2: CLASS MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION
Please respond YES or NO to the statement below (REQUIRED):
Between February 8, 2010 and September 16, 2015, I was placed and/or kept in the custody of the City of Jennings Jail after being detained pursuant to a warrant issued by the City of Jennings Municipal Court arising from the nonpayment of a previously imposed fine or court costs.

O YES

O NO

SECTION 3: DECLARATION
With my signature below I declare under penalty of perjury that the information in this Claim Form is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. (REQUIRED)
PRINT NAME

SIGNATURE

DATE

Note: The Settlement Administrator may request additional information if the Claim Form is insufficient to process your claim. Failure to provide any requested documentation may result in the denial of your claim and may limit the type of remedy you receive.
All Claim Forms must be postmarked by November 24, 2016 and mailed to:
City of Jennings Settlement c/o Dahl Administration PO Box 3614
Minneapolis, MN 55403-0614

Or sent by email by November 24, 2016 to: info@JenningsSettlement.com

QUESTIONS? Visit the settlement website at www.JenningsSettlement.com or call 1-866-236-6721.