United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-2982

___________________________

Tamatrice Williams

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

City of Sherwood

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

 ____________

 Submitted: December 10, 2019

Filed: January 28, 2020

____________

Before ERICKSON, ARNOLD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

More than two decades ago, Tamatrice Williams wrote four checks on

insufficient funds in violation of Arkansas law. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-37-302(a).

She alleges that, as a result, she got "caught in a never-ending cycle of court

proceedings" over the next twenty years in the Sherwood District Court, which

resulted in numerous fines, arrests, and days in jail. She sued the City of Sherwood
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that it had jailed her without inquiring into whether

she had the means to pay the fines imposed and without appointing counsel for her.

The district court1dismissed Williams's claims on the ground that a judgment in her

favor "would necessarily imply the invalidity of h[er] conviction or sentence," see

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), and Williams appeals. Reviewing de

novo, see Mick v. Raines, 883 F.3d 1075, 1078 (8th Cir. 2018), we affirm, though on

a different ground. See Duffner v. City of St. Peters, 930 F.3d 973, 976 (8th Cir.

2019).

At thisstage we accept the factual allegationsin the complaint astrue and view

them in a light most favorable to Williams. See Barton v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958, 963

(8th Cir. 2016). According to Williams, she and others lined up for cattle-call

appearances before the judge of what was called the hot-check division of the

Sherwood District Court. Some defendants faced new charges while others appeared

for periodic "review hearings" to update their progress in making payments toward

previously imposed fines. Proceedings were closed to the public,including family and

friends. To be allowed inside the courtroom, defendants had to sign forms waiving

representation by counsel.

Williams asserts in her complaint that the city "treated each review hearing

based on [a] prior conviction as an opportunity to open a new, separate, stand-alone

criminal case, thereby purportedly authorizing the court to impose new and

duplicative court costs, fines, and fees on the same hot check defendant." So when

someone failed to appear for a review hearing or failed to make payments toward a

fine, the city would issue an arrest warrant and open a new criminal case, which

allowed the city to impose fines above and beyond the statutory limit for a hot-check

conviction. The city's police department, according to Williams, carried out the arrest

1The Honorable James M. Moody Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-
warrants by tracking down defendants and ordering them to make payments on the

spot or be taken to jail.

Williams alleges that there was no inquiry into whether defendants had the

ability to pay the fines imposed. Instead, when defendants fell behind on payments,

the judge would order them jailed for up to 120 days or until outstanding debts were

paid. Williams maintainsthat fines and fees made up a significant portion of the city's

revenue.

Williams also maintains that she and her family paid several thousand dollars

in fines and that she has been taken to jail in front of her young children on several

occasions: She estimates she has been arrested eight different times and spent 160

days in jail. Williams escaped the debt cycle when the judge released her from her

outstanding obligations to the city a mere two days after a putative class action was

filed against the city and the judge involving the same practices that Williams

challenges here. See Dade v. City of Sherwood, 4:16-CV-602-JM-JJV. The judge and

the city eventually settled the Dade lawsuit, agreeing, among other things, to inquire

into a person's ability to pay fines, to provide clearer advice on the right to counsel,

and to maintain publicly accessible video recordings of the proceedings in the hotcheck court. In the settlement agreement the city agreed to be bound only to the

extent it employs someone, or there is a city official, who has any involvement or

control over the complained-of practices.

In Granda v. City of St. Louis, the plaintiff sued the City of St. Louis and a

municipal judge after the judge jailed her for her daughter's truancy. 472 F.3d 565,

566 (8th Cir. 2007). After the case was dismissed, the plaintiff argued on appeal that

the city was liable for the judge's decision because the judge was the final municipal

policymaker regarding truancymatters. We explained, however, that even though the

mayor appointed the judge, who was required by ordinance to report data to the

mayor about ordinance violations and confer with city officials about ordinance

-3-
enforcement, the judge was not a final municipal policymaker, if he was a municipal

policymaker at all. Id. at 568–69. We explained that the municipal court was a

division of the state circuit court, where decisions of the municipal court could be

reviewed. We also emphasized that the judge's jailing of the plaintiff "was a judicial

decision made in a case that came before [the judge] on a court docket," and the

plaintiff failed to cite a single case where a municipality had been held liable for such

a decision. Id. at 569.

Williams's claims are somewhat different though not meaningfully so. Her

counsel explained two important features of Williams's case at oral argument. First,

despite occasionally broader language in her complaint, Williams's counsel said she

was asserting that her constitutional rights were violated on account of an

unconstitutional municipal policy, not a custom or practice. A claim against a

municipality under § 1983 is sustainable only if there is alleged a constitutional

violation "committed pursuant to an official custom, policy, or practice of the city."

See id. at 568. Second, Williams's counsel was careful to emphasize that Williams

was not alleging that the judge was the final policymaker here; instead, Williams

allegesthat the city council and mayor were the final policymakers and that the judge

was merely an agent carrying out the city's unconstitutional policies.

We fail to see how this can be, at least in regard to judicial actions taken by a

judge like the one in this case. We recognize that the city paid the judge's salary and

funded the Sherwood District Court. But the judicial decisions of a duly elected judge

are not the kind of decisionsthat expose municipalitiesto § 1983 liability. Neither the

city council nor the mayor has the power to set judicial policy for Arkansas district

court judges or the power to ratify their judicial decisions, even if the city's

"policymakers knew of the judge's conduct and approved of it." See DeLeon v. City

of Haltom City, 106 F. App'x 909, 911 (5th Cir. 2004). Or as another circuit court has

held, "[a] municipality cannot be liable for judicial conduct it lacks the power to

require, control, or remedy, even if that conduct parallels or appears entangled with

-4-
the desires of the municipality." Eggar v. City of Livingston, 40 F.3d 312, 316 (9th

Cir. 1994).

Another difficultywithWilliams's claimsisthatshe merely speculates vaguely

and conclusorily that the city council and mayor had developed unconstitutional

policies. The only possible marker of a municipal policy that Williams identifies in

her complaint is a city ordinance that created a position at the judge's request to help

with serving the warrants associated with the hot-check court and thereby help bring

in revenue. But such an ordinance demonstrates merely that events occurring in the

court "parallel[ed] or appears entangled with the desires of the municipality," see id.,

or that the city knew of and approved of the judge's conduct. See DeLeon, 106 F.

App'x at 911. Critically, at no point does Williams identify an ordinance or other

municipal action whereby the city directs someone to commit an act that is a

constitutional violation or, with deliberate indifference to known or obvious

consequences, directs someone to take an action that leads to a violation of

constitutional rights. See Hollingsworth v. City of St. Ann, 800 F.3d 985, 992 (8th Cir.

2015). Williams has not alleged that city policymakers deliberately set itself on a

course that would lead to her constitutional rights being violated. See Szabla v. City

of Brooklyn Park, 486 F.3d 385, 390 (8th Cir. 2007) (en banc).

Instead, Williams relies on conclusory assertions that the city council and

mayor somehow created some unspoken policy and tasked the judge with carrying it

out. But as another circuit recently explained in a case containing similar conclusory

allegations, "any connection between the judicial acts and the [city officials] is too

chimerical to be maintained." McCullough v. Finley, 907 F.3d 1324, 1335 (11th Cir.

2018). To the extent Williams argues that, by agreeing to act as an agent for the city,

the judge and city necessarily conspired to violate constitutional rights, we do not

think the allegations of any such conspiracy are specific enough to survive a motion

to dismiss. See Johnson v. Perdue, 862 F.3d 712, 718 (8th Cir. 2017); Marti v. City

of Maplewood, 57 F.3d 680, 685 (8th Cir. 1995). Vague allegations of a conspiracy

-5-
to violate constitutionalrights do not plausibly support a claim. See McCullough, 907

F.3d at 1334–35.

We find it insignificant that the city had previously settled the Dade lawsuit,

a fact that at first glance seems to implicate the city in the goings-on in the hot-check

court. But litigants settle lawsuits for a variety of reasons, especially when they are

political actors sometimes subject to public pressure to act in a certain way. At no

point did the city admit that it had devised, or wasresponsible for, an unconstitutional

policy; in fact, the settlement agreement indicates to the contrary.

We therefore uphold the district court's dismissal of Williams's claims about

the court's failure to inquire into her indigency and failure to appoint counsel, along

with her related, derivative claims about the practicesin the Sherwood District Court.

Affirmed.

______________________________

-6-