Sharnalle Mitchell, et al. v. The City of Montgomery, et al.

Sharnalle Mitchell and others sued The City of Montgomery under 42 U.S.C. 1983 claiming:



The Plaintiffs in this case are each impowrished people who were jailed by the City of

Montgomery because they were unable to pay a debt owed to the City from traffic tickets. In

each case, the City ordered the Plamtiff either to pay the City immediately or to "sit out" his or

her debt in the City jail at a rate of $50 per day. Although the Plaintiffs pleaded that they were

Unable to pay due to their poverty, each was sent to jail for nonpayment and none was afforded

the inquiry into their ability to pay that the United States and Alabama Constitutions require.

Once locked in the City's jail, the Plaintiffs were told that they could reduce their time in jail by

working off their debts for an additional $25 per day if they agreed to perform janitorial tasks

assigned by City employees, including cleaning feces and blood from jail floors and wiping the

jail bars inside their overcrowded cells.



The treatment of Sharnalle Mitchell, Lorenzo Brown, Tito Williams, and Courtney Tubbs

reveals systemic illegality perpetrated by the City of Montgomery against some of its. poorest

people. The City of Montgomery, as a matter of policy and practice, engages in the same

conduct against many other indigent human beings on a daily basis, unlawfully jailing people if

they are too poor to pay traffic tickets and the associated fees that the City increasingly levies.

By and through their attorneys, 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 2014, these practices have no place in our society.

Nature of the Action'

It is the policy and practice of the City of Montgomery to jail people when they

cannot afford to pay debts owed to the City resulting from prior traffic tickets without

conducting any inquiry into the person's ability to pay and without considering alternatives to

imprisonment as required by federal and Alabama law.



2. It is the policy and practice of the City to jail indigent people for these debts

without informing people of their right to counsel and without providing adequate counsel.



3. It is the policy and practice of the City to hold prisoners in the City jail at a rate of

$50 per day, "serving out" their debts until the debts are extinguished. It is the policy and

practice of the City to tell inmates that their time in City jail can be further reduced if they agree

to "work oft" their debts to the City While in jail by laboring at janitorial and other work for the

City at a rate of $25 per day toward their debts.



4. It is the policy and practice of the City of Montgomery to contract with a private

for-profit corporation, Judicial Correction Services, Inc. ("JCS, Inc"), to perform what the City

calls "probation" services, which consists of collecting City debts in exchange for fees added to

the debts owed by people who cannot afford to pay their traffic ticket fees, costs, and surcharges

immediately. It is the policy and practice of the City of Montgomery to rely on the discretionary

recommendations and factual representations of this private entity to make decisions about

Whether to arrest a person, what disposition to enter in a person's case, and whether to put the

person on "probation" or to require immediate payment or jail despite the fact that the private

entity has a significant personal financial stake in these judicial enforcement proceedings.



5. Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief.

Jurisdiction and Venue



6. 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 Fourth, Sixth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to

the United States Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U. S .. § 1331 and

1343.



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

Parties



8. Plaintiff Sharnlle Mitchell is a 23-year-old resident of Montgomery. Plaintiff

Lorenzo Brown is a 58-year-old resident of Montgomery. Plaintiff Courtney Tubbs is a 23-year-

Old resident of Montgomery. Plaintiff Tito Williams is a 38-year-old resident of Montgomery.



9. Defendant City of Montgomery is a municipal corporation, organized under the

laws of the State of Alabama, that operates the Montgomery City Jail and the Montgomery

Municipal Court.



Factual Background



A. The Plaintiffs' Imprisonment



Plaintiff Sharnalle Mitchell



10. Sharnalle Mitchell is a 23-year-old woman and a mother of two children—a 1-

year-old boy and a 4-year-old girl.



11. On January 26, 2014, Montgomery City police officers came to Ms. Mitchell's

home and arrested her because she owed the City money from traffic tickets issued in 2010.

Officers took Ms. Mitchell away from her two children and brought her to the City jail.



12. The next day, January 27, 2014, she was brought to the City court and was told

that she would not be released from jail unless she could pay the total amount of the fines, costs,

associated fees, and extra surcharges from her tickets, which she was told was now in excess of

$4,500. Ms. Mitchell told the City prosecutor and the court that she was too poor to pay.



13. The City Attorney and City judge did not make any inquiry into her ability to pay

or into any alternatives to imprisonient as required by federal and Alabama law, and the City

did not appoint her an attorney to represent her at the hearing. The City judge instead told Ms.

Mitchell that she would have to "serve out" her fine at a rate of $50 per day in the City jai l.2



14. When Ms. Mitchell was taken back to the City jail, she was given a sheet of paper

stating that her jail term had been reduced to 58 days "or" payment of $2,907. See Exhibit 1.

Ms. Mitchell was also informed by jail guards that she could "work off" an additional $25 per day toward her debt to the City if she agreed to perform labor consisting of janitorial tasks,

including cleaning floors and wiping jail bars.



15. Desperate to get back to her young children, Ms. Mitchell accepted this

opportunity on her first day in jail. Thereafter, she labored to clean the floors and jail bars as

directed by City jail employees on as many other occasions as she could.



16. Attached to this Complaint is a photograph of Ms. Mitchell's initial desperate

attempt to account for how much of her debt she "worked off' in this way, which she calculated

by hand each night on the back of the piece of paper given to her by the City court so that She

could determine when she could be released to her family. See Exhibit 3.



17. Prior to herjailing, Ms. Mitchell earned money from styling people's hair to

support herself and her two children. Based on her income in 2013, Ms. Mitchell and her

children were subsisting at about 33% below the federal poverty line. 4 Because of her lack of

resources, Ms. Mitchell relies on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or

'-'Food Stamps") and the Women, Infants, Children (WIC) program to feed her family.



18. At the time she was jailed in 2014, Ms. Mitchell did not own a house, car,

financial instruments, Or any other significant assets. She had no bank account She was

struggling to pay the utility bills and to provide clothes for her children.



H. Plaintiff Lorenzo Brown



19. Lorenzo Brown is a 58-year-old disabled Montgomery resident. He was arrested

early in the morning on January 24, 2014, when City police came to the dilapidated boarding

house in which he lives and took him into custody for failure to pay court fines, fees, and

surcharges arising from traffic tickets issued in 2010.



20. Mr. Brown was kept in jail for three days until January 27, 2014, when he was

brought to the Municipal Court. The Municipal Court informed Mr. Brown that he would be

released from jail if he found someone to pay half of the total amount of his outstanding balance,

a sum in excess of $1,100 as reported to Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown informed the court about his

previous drug addiction and his financial inability to pay the debt, and he asked the court for

mercy.



21. The court, without conducting any inquiry into Mr. Brown's ability to pay,

without appointing Mr. Brown an attorney to represent him at the hearing, and without

considering any alternatives to imprisonment, ordered him to serve 44 days in City jail,

purportedly to "serve out" his $2,200 debt at a rate of $50 per day.5



22. When Mr. Brown was brought back to the City jail, he was given paperwork

informing him that he could be released after payment of $1,400 "or" 28 days in jail. See Exhibit

5. This document also Stated that Mr. Brown could be released "upon payment of half."



23. Mr. Brown depends on a monthly Social Security disability check for survival.

He does not own a house, car, financial instruments, or any other significant assets. He

maintains a bank account to collect his disability check, but it usually has no more than a few

dollars in it because he survives check-to-check. See Exhibit 7.



24. Mr. Brown suffers constant pain from a variety of ailments, including spinal

problems, arthritis, pain and a lack of movement in his bands, and persistent joint pain. As a

result, he is not able to work consistently.



iii. Plaintiff Tito Williams



25. Tito Williams is a 38-year-old father of two children who lives in Montgomery

with his mother and his children.



26. ME. Williams went to the City police station on January 26, 2014, after he learned

that he had outstanding warrants for debt from unpaid traffic tickets. Upon reporting to the

police station, he was arrested and placed in the City jail (which physically connects to the police

station). He was kept overnight and brought before the Municipal Court on January 27, 2014.



27. The City prosecutor and the court informed Mr. Williams that he owed the City

approximately $1,600 and asked him why he had not paid it. Mr. Williams informed the court

that he had no money to pay the City. The judge, Without conducting any inquiry into Mr.

Williams's ability to pay and without considering any alternatives to imprisonment, ordered him

to serve out his debt at $50 per day.



28. When Mr. Williams returned to the City jail, he was given paperwork that told

him that he would be released if he paid $1,164 "or" served 23 days in jail. See Exhibit 8.



29. Mr. Williams was told by City jail employees that he could "work off' his debt

and be released from confinemert earlier at a rate of $25 credit toward his debts per day if he

agreed to labor for the City while in jail, including performing janitorial tasks and serving food at

the jail. During Mr. Williams's first few days at the jail, several incidents involving another

inmate led to a significant mess of blood and feces throughout an area of the jail. City jail

employees did not want to clean the mess and offered extra labor credits to any inmate who

agreed to clean the blood and feces,. Mr. Williams, desperate to get home to his family, agreed to clean the blood and feces from the jail floors On several occasions despite the extraordinary

discomfort that the task brought him.6



30. At the time of his jailing, Mr. Williams had very recently obtained employment

for a few weeks, but he lost his job while he sat in the City jail for his traffic ticket debt.



31. Since his release, Mr. Williams has obtained a new job that pays near the

minimum wage. The new job is approximately a 20-minute drive from his home, and he must

rely on his mother to drop him off and pick him up each day at great expense to his family.



iv. Plaintiff Courtney Tubbs



32. Courtney Tubbs is a 23-year-old Montgomery resident who was incarcerated by

the State of Alabama from 2010 until 2013 due to a state criminal conviction separate froth

municipal debt. Mr. Tubbs learned after his incarceration that he had been assessed traffic

tickets by the City at the time of his 2010 arrest. He had not been aware of the tickets prior to his

state incarceration. After his release, he also received a new traffic 'ticket in the summer of 2013.



33. Since his release from prison, Mr. Tubbs has not been able to find Stable,

significant employment, and he is indigent. He lives with his little brother and his mother, who

is legally blind and who relies on Mr. Tubbs to help take care of her. He does not own a car,

house, financial instruments, or any other significant assets. He has no bank account.



34. On January 25, 2014, while sitting on his front porch, Mr. Tubbs was arrested by

City police.



35. Two days later, on January 27, 2014, Mr. Tubbs was brought before the City

judge, who asked Mr. Tubbs why he had not paid his debt. Mr. Tubbs stated that he could not

afford to pay. The judge asked Mr. Tubbs if he could get money down to the court that day, and Mr. Tubbs said that he could not. The court did not conduct an inquiry into Mr. Tubbs's ability

to pay, did not appoint him an attorney, and did not consider alternatives to imprisonment. Mr.

Tubbs was ordered imprisOned unless and until he paid $626 "or" spent 12 days in jail.



B. The Plaintiffs' Release From City Jail



36. On January 30, 2014, and January 31, 2014, with the assistance of present

counsel, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Brown, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Tubbs each filed petitions for

emergency relief in the Montgomery County Circuit Court seeking their immediate release from

confinement. After confemng with the state couft judge, counsel for the City and counsel for

Plaintiffs agreed on a course of action to obtain the release of the Plaintiffs, to subsequently drop

the emergency petitions for release from jail as moot, and to litigate the issues raised by the

City's treatment of Plaintiffs in federal court.



37. According to this agreement and following a similar procedure to that taken by

the City in two similar suits (2013-cv-732-MEF and 2013-cv-733-MEF), counsel for Plaintiff

was to file Notices of Appeal in Municipal Court objecting to the orders of incarceration for the

inability to pay debts, and the Plaintiffs would be subsequently released from the City jail.



38. Mr. Tubbs was released by the City on February 5, 2014, having served out the

entirety of his debt. Mr. Williams was released on February 7, 2014 and told by the City to pay

the remainder of his debts by May 6, 2014. See Exhibit 9. Ms. Mitchell. and Mr. Browii were

each released on February 10, 2014, and the City has ordered them to pay the City $100 and

$150 per month respectively or risk re-imprisonment. 7 See Exhibits 2, 6.



39. Plaintiffs Mitchell, Brown, and Williams thus continue to owe the City debts

relating to fines, fees, costs, and extra unknown surcharges from traffic cases that were long ago

resolved. 8 They remain impoverished and struggling to provide for themselves and their

families. See Exhibits 4, 7, 10. 9 When they are again unable to afford the payments required by

the City, they will again be Subject to the same unconstitutional treatment pursuant to the City's

ongoing policies and practices. They thus suffer an ongoing fear of imminent imprisonment

based on the City's policies and practices with respect to municipal debt collection.



C. The City's Policies and Practices



40. The treatment of Plaintiffs was caused by and is representative of the City's

policies and practices concerning traffic tickets and collecting related debts. These facts,

policies, and practices are similar to those alleged in the Amended Complaints in cases 201 3-cv-

732-MEF (Doc. 10) and 2013-cv-733-MEF (Doc. 9), which describe additional people whose

rights were violated by the same policies and practices.



41. The Plaintiffs and other witnesses have observed numerous other impoverished

Montgomery residents 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 Alabama law.'°



42. 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 itil they brought forward large sums of money to pay off debts supposedly owed for traffic

tickets and subsequent surcharges.



43. On the date that each Plaintiff was order jailed, there were 67 people brought into

court from the City jail for the City's jail docket, almost all of which involved money owed for

traffic tickets or minor offenses. The City holds Municipal Court every business day.



44. The City's policy is to assess fines, costs, surcharges, and additional fees upon a

finding of a traffic violation. If the person can afford to pay the total cost, the person is

permitted to pay, and the case is closed. If the person cannot afford to pay the entire amount, the

City either gives the person a date by which to pay in full or puts the person on a "payment plan"



45. The City has contracted with Judicial Correction Services (JCS, Inc.) to collect

those payments, referring to this system of debt collection for traffic tickets as "probation." JCS,

Inc. operates what it calls an "Offender Funded Model" of probation, promising the City that it

Will not charge the City for its services. Instead, JCS, Inc. charges debtors—those who cannot

afford to pay their tickets immediately—additional monthly fees for the ability to be on

"probation," typically $40 per month on top of whatever is owed to the City. JCS, Inc. also

charges an initial "set up" fee when a person is placed on "probation." The City places people

on such "probation" payment plans pursuant to general practice and standing orders.



46. If an impoverished person is unable to make a full payment, JCS, Inc. often takes

out the amount owed to JCS, Inc. first so that JCS, Inc. is paid even if a person's debt to the City47. If a person misses payments or pays less than ordered, JCS, Inc. has the purported

contractual authority and discretion to decide whether to petition the City for "revocation" of

probation.. JCS, Inc. also has a policy of placing people who cannot make full payments—from

whom the company has difficulty making a profit—in "warrant status," which can result in

warrants issued for their arrest and which constitutes a JCS, Inc. determination that JCS, Inc. will

not accept the person for future probation supervision. JCS cOmmunicateS this decision to the

City, and the City policy is to agree not to place such people back on payment plans, requiring

instead that those people pay in full or go to jail.



48. In other cases in which a person is making substantial payments, JCS, Inc. has a

personal financial interest in extending a person's probation and in keeping the person ôñ a plan

for as long as possible so that it can profit from the collection of more monthly fees.



49. Thus, under the City's scheme, JCS, Inc. can not only decide whether to initiate

judicial revocation proceedings, but also whether a person is put on probation and what judicially

ordered conditions are imposed. JCS, Inc., will also make other recommendations to the City

judge concerning how JCS, Inc. believes the person has fared on probation, whether the person

should be placed on probation, whether JCS, Inc. considers the person "eligible" for probation,

what the amount of monthly court-ordered payments should be, and a variety of other caserelated

decisions. For example, in the eases of Ms.. Mitchell and Mr. Brown, the City could not

put them on payment plan probation with JCS, Inc. because JCS, Inc. declined to accept them.



50. JCS, Inc. has a personal financial interest to conduct its role as a probation officer

in away that maximizes its personal profit and not necessarily as a neutral public cotirt officer.



51. JCS, Inc. uses a "probation" room inside the City building that also houses the

Municipal Court, directly across from the Municipal courtroom. A JCS, Inc. employee often sits

in the Courtroom near the judge and advises the judge about how to handle the cases of

"probationers" and potential "probationers."



52. JCS, Inc. and the City enforce a policy and practice of initiating and issuing arrest

warrants when a person misses a payment or fails to make sufficient payments without

considering the person's ability to pay—even when they have knowledge that the person is

indigent—and without providing notice and summoning the person to court for a hearing.

Instead, City policy allows the City to issue and serve arrest warrants, and City officers go to the

homes of traffic debtors to arrest them.



53. The City often executes these warrants prior to or over the weekend, which results

in a person serving needless extra time in jail prior to the next available court date.



54. When warrants are issued and executed, the City adds fees, costs, and surcharges

to the amounts of debt already owed. In addition to court fees and JCS, Inc. fees and costs, the

City routinely adds Surcharges for warrants, a "solicitor" fee, and even a 30% debt-collection fee.

Navigating the origin of these numerous fees and surcharges and determining whether they are

even validly assessed by the City in any particular case is a complicated inquiry involving the

application of state law, local law and practice, and constitutional law to a person's case history.



55. When a person is brought into court after an arrest, the City's policy is to order

them to pay their debt—or a significant portion of their debt—immediately or be held in jail until

their debt is extinguished at a rate of $50 per day. If JCS, Inc. informs the City that it does not

want to accept a person onto "probation," the person will be ordered to pay Of be jailed.



56. The City calls these orders "fines or days" and refers to this policy, without any

irony, as "commuting" people's "sentences."



57. If family members are present, the City often calls them up to the bench and asks

them to pay as much of their family member's debts as they can on the threat that the person Who

allegedly owes the in will be jailed if the family members do not pay." The City does not

conduct any meaningful inquiry into the person's ability to pay and does not even explain to

people how they might claim indigency through standard forms issued by the State of Alabama.



58. As with the Plaintiffs in this case, the amount Of debt announced to debtors by the

judge in court often differs from the amount listed on the paperwork that they receive on their

return to the jail. The paperwork amount is usually less, meaning that people like the Plaintiffs

Will often have a balance remaining after they "serve out" their fine, leading to their placement

back on a payment plan and their continued supervision. The City appears to refer to this as

"reopening" their cases, although this "reopening" and the corresponding modifications that it

entails are not performed at any formal hearing or even in the person's presence.



59. Once people return to the jail from City court, they are told of the City policy to

have them, "work off' an extra $25 per day toward their debts if the person agrees to labor in the

City jail while they are imprisoned.



60. Inmates desperate to return to their families by "working off' their debts more

quickly compete to be selected by City jail employees for a limited number of difficult,

unsanitary, and demeaning daily labor tasks.



61. The City's debt collection practices are enormously profitable, especially in

getting family members with no legal obligation to pay any money to the City to come up with

money to get their loved ones released from jail and in getting low income people to forgo basic

necessities of life, in order to pay JCS, Inc. and the City in an attempt to avoid jail.



62. For example, the 2013 City of Birmingham budget reflects approximately $2.8

million from court fines and traffic citations, the City of Mobile approximately $2 million, and

the City of Huntsville approximately $2.5 million. In contrast, the City of Montgomery budget

reflects revenue of $15 .9 million from municipal court 'Tines and forfeitures."12



63. The City uses the money collected through these procedures to 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.



64. The City's recent "Amnesty Program" starkly demonstrates its practice of jailing

persons who are unable to pay debts to the City. In May 2013, Montgomery Mayor Todd

Strange and City Municipal Court Administrator Kenneth Nixon (who is also a member of the

Mayor's cabinet), announced that the Municipal Court would offer an "Amnesty Program" on

the first two Saturdays in June. Under thisprogram, the City announced that it would remove

certain fees, eliminate arrest warrants, and institute a payment plan if individuals were unable to

pay the full amount to which the City claimed it was entitled.



65. However, at least 15 people were arrested on the first day of the Amnesty

Program because they had too much money allegedly outstanding (greater than $2,500) or did

not bring at least $150 (or 10% of what was owed, if greater) to pay towards their debts.



66. These policies and practices have created a culture of fear among the City's

poorest residents, who are afraid even to appear in City court to explain their indigence because

they know they will be jailed by the City without any meaningful process. Indeed, Mr. Nixon

reported to the Montgomery Advertiser that many residents were jailed during the amnesty

program becausethey owed too much and could not pay. Mr. Nixon publicly acknowledged that

the arrests probably scared others from participating in the Amnesty Program.



67. 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.



68. Mr. Nixon warned that, following the 2013 Amnesty Program, the City would be

"stricter" about arresting people for unpaid debt. The City also has a policy of referring unpaid

debt to the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office, which will send letters to debtors

threatening imminent arrest if they do not pay their debts. A surcharge of 30% of the value of

the debt is added to the debt to compensate the District Attorney's Office for its participation in

the City's debt collection. The City purports to have the authority to arrest and jail indigent

people when they cannot pay even these additional surcharges.



69. The City has stated that it seeks to use these collection programs and tactics to go

after old traffic debt, including debt dating back to the 1980s.



70. As in the Plaintiff's cases, the City's policy is to modify orders of incarceration

outside of any formal judicial process. These modifications include: decreasing a person's

sentence from what was announced in court so that a person is released with a remaining balance

owed; allowing a person's release without any hearing if the person or family members present

some money to the City clerk; and allowing City employees to reduce the time a person is

ordered to be in jail based on labor performed in the jail without any judicial involvement.



71. Plaintiffs and Witnesses have observed numerous other violations of basic

constitutional rights in the Montgomery Municipal Court within the past year.



72. For example, on January 27, 2014, a homeless military veteran appeared with a

social worker from the Veterans Administration. The man told the judge that he could not afford

the debts but that he hoped to be receiving some disability payments from the Veterans

Administration and hoped to get a job when he completed a mental health program in which he

was currently enrolled. The judge told him that the City would not wait for the Veterans

administration to pay the man and that, if the man could not pay by June, he would lose his job

because he would be "upstairs sitting your fine out" at the City jail.



73. On that same day, the City ordered several other people to jail terms for failure to

pay traffic ticket debt despite their protestations of indigence. The City did not hold any inquiry

into their ability to pay as required by clearly established Alabama and federal constitutional law.



These cases included:



a. A diabetic man who claimed to be too poor to afford his debt. The judge told him: "I

gotta get some money before you can go." Then the judge said.- "you get $1,000

down here, you can come home." As the man attempted to protest to the judge,

courtroom security took him back into custody.



b. Another inmate was brought out from the jail, and the judge told his family that he

would not be released unless the family could get several hundred dollars down to the

municipal court clerk's office.



c. Another woman claimed to be too poor to afford her debt to the City. The judge told

her: "you've got to get this paid or you'll end up in jail." He then ordered her to pay

in full within 4 weeks and told her that she would not be granted any extensions. The

judge did not conduct any hearing into her indigence.



74. 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 Montgomery Violated Plaintiffs' Rights By

Jailing Them For Their Inability To Pay the City.



75. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-74.



76. 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 them

when they could not afford to pay the debt allegedly owed. Defendant violated Plaintiff's 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.



77. Defendant's policy and practice of imprisoning people when they cannot afford to

pay their debt and of automatically converting monetary fines into days in jail at a rate of $50 per

day violates the due process and equal protection provisions of the United States Constitution.

Count Two: Defendant City of Montgomery Violated Plaintiffs' Rights By

Imprisoning Them For Inability To Pay Debts Without Appointing Adequate Counsel.



78. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-77.



79. Defendant violated Plaintiffs' right to the effective assistance of counsel under the

Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by imprisoning Plaintiffs

during proceedings initiated by City prosecutors at which Plaintiffs did not have the benefit of

adequate counsel and did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive counsel.



80. 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 traffic violations at which the person was also unrepresented, violates the Sixth and FOurteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution.



Count Three: Defendant City of Montgomery's Use of a Private Actor With a

Personal Financial Stake in the Outcome of Judicial Proceedings and Case Decisions As a

Supposedly Neutral Probation Official Violates Plaintiffs' Due Process Rights.

8L Plaintiffs incorperate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-80 above.



82. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits neutral judicial

officials and neutral civil and criminal law enforcement actors ftm having a per fmaicial

interest in the cases prosecuted and decided by the government. The City has contracted with a

private, for-profit corporation to perform a traditional court function—probation—and made the

resolution of people's cases contingent on the advice, recommendations, discretionary decisions,

enforcement actions, and representations of this private entity.



83. Because this non-neutral actor profits significantly from the decisions of the City

about whether to place people like Plaintiffs on probation, what conditions to require, and how

vigorously to enforce those conditions, there is a realistic possibility that those financial interests

will affect its judgment when it participates in those decisions. Because this private entity has a

significant personal financial interest in how these cases are resolved, unlike a traditional neutral

judicial actor, prosecuting authority, or probation department, the City's policies and practices

violate the longstanding due process restrictions against such self-interested arrangements in

American courts of justice.



Count Four: Defendant City of Montgomery's Scheme of Forcing Indigent

Pnsoners to Labor in the City Jail in Order to Work Off Their City Debts Violates the

Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Federal Law.



84. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-83 above.



85. The City unlawfully imprisoned Plaintiffs for a monetary debt owed to the City.

On top of being unlawfully imprisoned for failure to pay debts owed to the City, Plaintiffs

Mitchell and Williams were, pursuant to City policy, coerced with longer unlawful prison terms

by City officials if they did not "volunteer" to labor in the City jail under disgusting conditions

for an extra credit of $25 per day toward their debts .. This amounts to peonage and forced labor,

whereby a person is coerced by threat of legal sanction—i.e. imprisonment—to work off a debt

to .a master. It is also an abuse of the legal process that exploited Defendant's unlawful

incarceration of Plaintiffs to force them to accept, in their desperation to end their unlawful

incarceration more quickly, the conditions of forced labor, performing janitorial tasks that even

City employees did not want to perform, such as cleaning significant amounts of blood and feces

in an overcrowded jail environment.



86. Plaintiffs allegedly owed the City a solely monetary debt for traffic tickets and

associated fees, costs, and surcharges. Because 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 work Off their purely monetary debt. 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 Five: Defendant City of Montgomery's 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.



87. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-86 above.



88. The United States Supreme Court has held that, when governments seek to recoup

costs of prosecution from indigent defendants—for example, the cost of appointed counsel—they

may not take advantage of their position toimpose 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 charge additional fees only to those people who are indigent and cannot afford to pay

their costs, fees, and fines in full immediately and place such indigent people on "pay only"

probation when the cases of wealthier people would be closed, but by imposing imprisonment,

threats of imprisonment, indeterminate "probation," 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 Alabama debtor may invoke against a private

creditor. This coercive policy and practice constitutes invidious discrimination a4 Violates the

fundamental principles of equal protection of the laws.



Count Six: Defendant City Of Montgomery's Policy and Practice of Issuing and

Serving Arrest Warrants Solely Based on Nonpayment of Monetary Debts Violates the

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.



89. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-88 above.



90. The City's policy and practice is to issue and serve arrest warrants at the homes of

those who have not paid their traffic debt. These warrants are sought, issued, and served without

any inquiry into the person's ability to pay even when the City has advance knowledge that the

person is impoverished and unable to pay the debts. These warrants are sought, issued, and

served without any finding of probable cause that the person has committed 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. As in the

case of Mr. Brown, the City often chooses to serve these warrants prior to a weekend so that a

person can spend, as did Mr. Brown, up to three ftill days in the City jail prior to the next court

session, a practice designed to increase the time a person spends in jail and that is arbitrary and without justification for such delay. These practices violate the Fourth and Fourteenth

AiflendrPents and result in a deprivation of fundament1 liberty without adequate due process.

Count Seven: Defendant City of Montgomery's Policy and Practice of Requiring a

Costly "Appeal Bond" for Indigent People Without Conducting a Meaningful Inquiry Into

Their Ability to Pay Violates Due Process and Equal Protection.



91. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegation.s in paragraphs 1-90 above.



92. When Plaintiffs Mitchell and Brown attempted to file an emergency appeal of the

order imprisoning them for owing the City a monetary debt, the City followed its policy of

attempting to bar their appeal unless Plaintiffs paid to the City a total of $9,000 and $5,000

respectively, significantly more than the amount either owed to the City, which Plaintiffs were

already unable to afford—a fact of poverty that led to their illegal incarceration in the first place.



93. This policy of charging appeal bonds to those who cannot afford them, which a

previous decision from this Court held unconstitutional, violates the equal protection rights

secured by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Req uest for-Relief



WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court issue the following relief:



a. A declaratory judgment that the Defendant City violated Plaintiffs' Fourteenth

Amendment due process and equal protection rights by imprisoning them because they

could not 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 violated Plaintiffs' rights under the Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendments by imprisoning them WithOut appointing adequate counsel at the

judicial proceeding that led to their incarceration;



c. A declaratory judgment that Defendant violated Plaintiffs' rights by employing and

relying On a non-neutral "probation" officer who has a significant personal financial stake

in the outcome of Plaintiffs' judicial proceedings;



d. A declaratory judgment that the City violated Plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory

rights by coercing them into performing labor in its jail in order to work off their debt;



e. A declaratory judgment that Defendant violated Plaintiffs' equal protection rights by

imposing harsh debt collection measures not imposed on debtors whose creditors are

private entities;



f. A declaratory judgment that Defendant violated Plaintiffs' Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights by issuing and serving arrest warrants without probable cause, with

unreasonable delay prior to presentment, and without providing pre-deprivation of liberty

process where such process is easily available to the City;



g. A declaratory judgment that Defendant violated Plaintiffs' equal protection rights by

charging indigent people appeal bonds on Which the right to pursue and appeal Was

purportedly contingent;



h. An order and judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendant from

enforcing the above-described 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. §1983.



Court Docket Entries:



Date Filed # Docket Text



03/18/2014 1 COMPLAINT against The City of Montgomery ( Filing fee $ 400.00 receipt number 4602031370), filed by Sharnalle Mitchell, Lorenzo Brown, Courtney Tubbs, Tito Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Filing Fee Receipt)(dmn, ) (Entered: 03/20/2014)

03/18/2014 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Lorenzo Brown, Sharnalle Mitchell, Courtney Tubbs, Tito Williams. (dmn, ) (This document has no pdf attached, see Doc. 1 for pdf.) (Entered: 03/20/2014)



03/18/2014 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, and MOTION for Expedited Hearing by Lorenzo Brown, Sharnalle Mitchell, Courtney Tubbs, Tito Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(dmn, ) (Entered: 03/20/2014)



03/18/2014 3 Motion for Alec Karakatsanis to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $50.00 receipt number 4602031373) by Lorenzo Brown, Sharnalle Mitchell, Courtney Tubbs, Tito Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Pro Hac Vice Filing Fee)(dmn, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/2/2014: # 3 Certificate of Good Standing) (dmn, ). (Entered: 03/20/2014)



03/18/2014 4 Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Lorenzo Brown, Sharnalle Mitchell, Courtney Tubbs, Tito Williams. (dmn, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/26/2014: # 1 Corporate Disclosure containing original signature received) (dmn, ). (Entered: 03/20/2014)

03/20/2014 NOTICE of Assignment to Magistrate Judge mailed to counsel for Lorenzo Brown, Sharnalle Mitchell, Courtney Tubbs, Tito Williams. (dmn, ) (NO PDF attached) (Entered: 03/20/2014)



03/20/2014 5 Summons Issued; summons and complaint mailed CMRRR to The City of Montgomery. (dmn, ) (Entered: 03/20/2014)



03/20/2014 6 Case reassigned to Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller. Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody no longer assigned to the case as presiding judge. (dmn, ) (Entered: 03/20/2014)



03/25/2014 7 Return Receipt Card showing service of complaint and summons signed by Steve Kelly for The City of Montgomery served on 3/24/2014, answer due 4/14/2014. (dmn, ) (Entered: 03/25/2014)



04/02/2014 8 *TEXT ORDER* granting 3 Motion for Alec Karakatsanis to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 4/2/2014. (dmn, ) Modified on 4/2/2014 to reflect this is a "TEXT ORDER." (dmn, ) (NO PDF attached) (Entered: 04/02/2014)



04/04/2014 9 ORDER that a Status Conference is set for 4/8/2014 at 01:15 PM (CST) by conference call arranged by counsel for the plaintiffs before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on the 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. The Court's contact number is 334-792-3721 at the Federal Courthouse in Dothan, Alabama. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 4/4/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, WR.(dmn, ) (Entered: 04/04/2014)

04/08/2014 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller: Status Conference held by telephone on 4/8/2014 (NO PDF ATTACHED) (war, ) (Entered: 04/08/2014)



04/11/2014 10 ORDER: This cause is before the Court on Plaintiffs' 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Hearing Request filed on 3/28/10214. A status conference was held on 4/8/2014 to address the timetable for expeditiously resolving Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. Pursuant to agreements made at the scheduling conference, the schedule is set as follows: (1) Defendant will submit a response to Plaintiff's 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction on or before 4/23/2014; (2) Plaintiffs will then submit a reply on or before 4/29/2014; (3) Plaintiffs' 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is set for a hearing. Motion Hearing set for 5/1/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2A before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 4/11/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, WR.(dmn, ) (Entered: 04/11/2014)



04/14/2014 11 (STRICKEN pursuant to 19 ORDER) ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by The City of Montgomery.(Smithee, Stephanie) Modified on 5/2/2014 (djy, ). (Entered: 04/14/2014)



04/15/2014 12 [VACATED PURSUANT TO COURT 24 ORDER.] RULE 26(f) ORDER directing the parties to file the Rule 26(f) report containing the proposed discovery plan as further set out in the order. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 5/19/2014. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 4/15/2014. (dmn, ) Modified on 5/16/2014 (dmn, ). (Entered: 04/15/2014)



04/16/2014 13 Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by The City of Montgomery. (Smithee, Stephanie) (Entered: 04/16/2014)



04/23/2014 14 RESPONSE to Motion re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Hearing filed by The City of Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-Case Action Summary, # 2 Exhibit 2-Kloess Affidavit)(Smithee, Stephanie) (Entered: 04/23/2014)



04/29/2014 15 REPLY to Response to Motion re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Hearing filed by Lorenzo Brown, Sharnalle Mitchell, Courtney Tubbs, Tito Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4)(Karakatsanis, Alec) (Entered: 04/29/2014)



04/30/2014 16 NOTICE of Filing Declaration of Tito Williams (filed previously as an affidavit, Exhibit 10, to Plaintiffs' 1 Complaint) by Lorenzo Brown, Sharnalle Mitchell, Courtney Tubbs, Tito Williams (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Tito Williams)(Karakatsanis, Alec) Modified on 5/1/2014 to add additional text and create link to Doc. 1 . (dmn, ) (Entered: 04/30/2014)

05/01/2014 ORAL ORDER granting 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Entered by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 5/1/14. (war, ) (Entered: 05/01/2014)



05/01/2014 17 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller: Motion Hearing held on 5/1/2014 re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Tito Williams, Lorenzo Brown, Sharnalle Mitchell, Courtney Tubbs (PDF available for court use only). (Court Reporter Patricia Starkie.) (war, ) (Entered: 05/01/2014)



05/01/2014 18 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER directing as follows: (1) The City of Montgomery is enjoined from collecting or attempting to collect all outstanding fines, fees, costs, surcharges or the outstanding balance of any monies owed to the City or to Judicial Correction Services, Inc. ("JCS") associated with traffic tickets by Sharnalle Mitchell, Lorenzo Brown, and Tito Williams until further order of the Court; (2) on or before 6/2/2014, the City shall submit to the Court a comprehensive plan, as further set out in order, which shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws and the Alabama Rulesof Criminal Procedure; (3) On or before June 13, 2014, Plfs shall submit objections to the Citysproposed plan; (4) the Court will hold a Hearing to address the adequacy of the City's current or proposed plan on 6/30/2014 @ 09:00 AM before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller, in Courtroom 2A, US Courthouse, Montgomery, AL; (5) Montgomery City Attorney Kim O. Fehl, Municipal Court Director Kenneth Nixon, Montgomery City Police Chief Kevin J. Murphy, and the Presiding Montgomery Municipal Court Judge shall be present in person for the June 30, 2014 hearing; (6) This Preliminary Injunction Order shall apply to the parties, the parties' officers,agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and any other person who is in active concert or participation with the parties or the parties' officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys ; (7) Because the risk is low that the City will incur substantial expenses, costs, or damages during the pendency of this preliminary injunction, because Plfs are substantially likely to succeed on the merits, and because Plfs have limited financial resources, no security bond will be required under Rule 65(c) of the FRCP. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 5/1/14. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist). Furnished to calendar group & WR.(djy, ) (Entered: 05/01/2014)



05/02/2014 19 ORDER directing that the City's 11 Answer to Complaint is STRICKEN for violating the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;The City shall file an Amended Answer that is compliant with Rule 8 by May 16, 2014, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 5/2/14. (djy, ) (Entered: 05/02/2014)



05/05/2014 20 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings (PDF ACCESS RESTRICTED FOR 90 DAYS) held on May 1, 2014, before Judge Fuller. Court Reporter/Transcriber Starkie, Telephone number 334-262-1221. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION DUE WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS. Redaction Request due 5/27/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/5/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/4/2014. (djy, ) (Entered: 05/05/2014)



05/15/2014 21 NOTICE of Appearance by Shannon Lynn Holliday on behalf of The City of Montgomery (Holliday, Shannon) (Entered: 05/15/2014)



05/15/2014 22 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert David Segall on behalf of The City of Montgomery (Segall, Robert) (Entered: 05/15/2014)



05/15/2014 23 MOTION to Continue DEADLINE FOR FILING ANSWER by The City of Montgomery. (Holliday, Shannon). Corrected Event to MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer on 5/16/2014 (qc/djy, ). (Entered: 05/15/2014)



05/16/2014 24 ORDER: Upon consideration of the 23 Unopposed Motion to Continue Deadline for Filing Answer filed on 5/15/2014, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall either (a) file its answer to the Complaint no later than fourteen days after the filing of an amended complaint, or (b) in the event no amended complaint is filed, no later than 6/15/2014. It is further ORDERED that because the Court struck Defendant's Answer (Doc. 19 ) the Court's 12 Rule 26(f) Order is VACATED. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 5/16/2014. (dmn, ) (Entered: 05/16/2014)



05/23/2014 25 NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph Mitchell McGuire on behalf of All Plaintiffs (McGuire, Joseph) (Entered: 05/23/2014)



05/23/2014 26 AMENDED COMPLAINT First Amended Class Action Complaint against All Defendants, filed by Sharnalle Mitchell, Lorenzo Brown, Courtney Tubbs, Tito Williams, Tequila Ballard, Willie Williams, Thomas Ellis, Gavin Bullock, Kendrick Maull, Tamara Dudley, Jermaine Tyler, Janet Edwards, Risko McDaniel, Demetri Colvin, Carl Williams, Rayshone Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit, # 29 Exhibit, # 30 Exhibit, # 31 Exhibit, # 32 Exhibit, # 33 Exhibit, # 34 Exhibit, # 35 Exhibit)(Karakatsanis, Alec) Modified on 5/27/2014 to reflect this is an Amended complaint not an amendment. Wrong event code selected when originally filed. Also amended to add newly named plaintiffs. (dmn, ) (Entered: 05/23/2014)

05/23/2014 ***Attorney Matthew Swerdlin,Joseph Mitchell McGuire, and Alec Karakatsanis added for Tequila Ballard, Gavin Bullock, Demetri Colvin, Tamara Dudley, Janet Edwards, Thomas Ellis, Kendrick Maull, Risko McDaniel, Jermaine Tyler, Carl Williams, Rayshone Williams, and Willie Williams pursuant to 26 First Amended Class Action Complaint. (dmn, ) (Entered: 05/28/2014)



05/28/2014 27 MOTION to Continue (Unopposed) June 2, 2014 Deadline Set Out in Preliminary Injunction Order (Doc. 18 ) by The City of Montgomery. (Holliday, Shannon) Modified on 5/29/2014 to create actual hyperlink. (dmn, ) (Entered: 05/28/2014)



05/29/2014 28 ORDER that a Status Conference is set for 6/5/2014 at 02:00 PM by conference call arranged by counsel for the defendant before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller. It is further ORDERED that the defendant's 27 Unopposed Motion to Continue June 2, 2014 Deadline Set Out in Preliminary Injunction Order is GRANTED to and including 6/6/2014. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 5/29/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, WR.(dmn, ) (Entered: 05/29/2014)



06/05/2014 29 MOTION to Relieve the City of its Obligation Under the 18 Preliminary Injunction Order to File a Plan or, in the alternative, for the Court to Treat Exhibit 1 to the Proposed Counterclaim in Cleveland and Watts as Satisfying that Obligation filed by The City of Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Holliday, Shannon) Modified on 6/5/2014 to clean up text. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/05/2014)



06/05/2014 30 ORDER that the Status Conference set for 6/5/2014 at 2:00 PM is RESET for 6/10/2014 at 02:00 PM by conference call arranged by counsel for the Defendant before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 6/5/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, WR.(dmn, ) (Entered: 06/05/2014)



06/05/2014 31 ORDER re Defendant City of Montgomery's 29 Motion to Relieve the City of its Obligation under the Preliminary Injunction Order. It is ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiffs shall show cause in writing on or before 6/10/2014 at 12:00 P.M., as to why the motion should not be granted. Show Cause Response due by 6/10/2014. 2. The 6/6/2014 deadline for Defendant to submit its current or proposed plan as required under the 18 Preliminary Injunction Order and amended by the Court (Doc. 28 ) is extended to and including 6/13/2014. 3. The remaining deadlines set forth in the Preliminary Injunction Order shall otherwise remain unchanged but the Court will address the parties' requests for any extensions at the Status Conference currently set for 6/10/2014 at 2:00 P.M. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 6/5/2014. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/05/2014)



06/06/2014 32 ANSWER to 26 First Amended Class Action Complaint by The City of Montgomery.(Holliday, Shannon) Modified on 6/9/2014 to reflect actual title and create link to Doc. 26 . (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/06/2014)



06/09/2014 33 RULE 26(f) ORDER directing the parties to file the Rule 26(f) report containing the proposed discovery plan as further set out in the order. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 7/10/2014. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 6/9/2014. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/09/2014)



06/09/2014 34 RESPONSE in Opposition to 29 MOTION to Relieve its Obligation Under the 18 Preliminary Injunction Order, to File a Plan or, in the Alternative, for the Court to Treat Exhibit 1 to the Proposed Counterclain in Cleveland an filed by Tequila Ballard, Lorenzo Brown, Gavin Bullock, Demetri Colvin, Tamara Dudley, Janet Edwards, Thomas Ellis, Kendrick Maull, Risko McDaniel, Sharnalle Mitchell, Courtney Tubbs, Jermaine Tyler, Carl Williams, Rayshone Williams, Tito Williams, Willie Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Municipal Court Revenue Surveys, # 2 Exhibit Mayor's Contract with JCS, Inc., # 3 Exhibit Nixon Deposition Excerpts, # 4 Exhibit Standard JCS, Inc. Notice, # 5 Exhibit JCS, Inc. Standard Conditions, # 6 Exhibit Hayes Deposition Excerpts, # 7 Exhibit Mayor's Contract with Public Defender)(Karakatsanis, Alec) Modified on 6/10/2014 to clean up text. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/10/2014 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller: Status Conference held by telephone on 6/10/2014 (NO PDF ATTACHED). (war, ) (Entered: 06/10/2014)



06/11/2014 35 ORDER: Pursuant to representations made by the parties at a status conference held on 6/10/2014, it is hereby ORDERED that the 7/10/2014 deadline for the parties to submit their Rule 26(f) report is extended to and including 9/8/2014. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 9/8/2014. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 6/11/2014. (dmn, ) (Entered: 06/11/2014)



06/11/2014 36 ORDER: On 6/10/2014, a telephone status conference was held addressing the Court's 18 Preliminary Injunction Order. Counsel for the parties in the above-styled action, as well as counsel for the parties in Cleveland v. City of Montgomery, Case No. 2:13-cv-732, and Watts v. City of Montgomery, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-733 (hereinafter Cleveland/Watts), were present. In light of representations and agreements made at this status conference, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The June 30, 2014 hearing set forth in the Preliminary Injunction Order is CANCELLED. The Court will instead hold a Telephone Status Conference on 6/30/2014 at 09:00 AM by conference call arranged by counsel for Defendant before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller. No parties other than theattorneys for the parties in the above-styled action and in Cleveland/Watts are required to be present for the June 30, 2014 telephone conference. 2. All deadlines contained in the Preliminary Injunction Order are suspended indefinitely and the Preliminary Injunction Order is extended for 30 days. 3. The parties in the above-styled action and Cleveland/Watts shall be prepared todiscuss the status of Plaintiffs pending claims in their respective cases at the June 30, 2014 telephone conference. 4. The Clerk of Court shall also docket this order in Cleveland v. City of Montgomery, Case No. 2:13-cv-732. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 6/11/2014. Order docketed in Civil Acton No. 2:13-cv-732 as directed.(dmn, ) (Entered: 06/11/2014)



06/30/2014 37 ORDER directing as follows: (1) a telephone Status Conference is set for 7/21/2014 @ 09:00 AM before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller, by conference call arranged by counsel for defendant; (2) directing the clerk to also docket this order in Cleveland v. City of Montgomery, et al., Case No. 2:13cv732, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 6/30/14. Furnished to calendar group & WR.(djy, ) (Entered: 06/30/2014)

06/30/2014 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller: Status Conference held by telephone on 6/30/2014 (NO PDF ATTACHED) (war, ) (Entered: 06/30/2014)

06/30/2014 Set Hearings: Status Conference set for 7/21/2014 @ 09:00 AM before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller, by telephone conference call (NO PDF attached-See Docket Entry 37 ). (djy, ) (Entered: 07/02/2014)

07/21/2014 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller: Telephone Conference held on 7/21/2014 (NO PDF ATTACHED). (war, ) (Entered: 07/21/2014)



07/21/2014 38 ORDER: On 7/21/2014, a telephone status conference was held addressing the Court's 18 Preliminary Injunction Order. It is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Preliminary Injunction Order is extended for 30 days. 2. A telephone Status Conference is set for 8/20/2014 at 02:00 PM by conference call arranged by counsel for Defendant before Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller. 3. The Clerk of Court shall also docket this order in Cleveland v. City of Montgomery, et al, Case No. 2:13-cv-732. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 7/21/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, WR.(dmn, ) (Entered: 07/21/2014)

08/20/2014 Set Hearings: Status Conference set for 8/20/2014 02:00 PM by telephone before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. (ag, ) (Entered: 08/20/2014)



08/20/2014 39 Case reassigned to Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller no longer assigned to the case as presiding judge. (dmn, ) (Entered: 08/20/2014)



08/20/2014 40 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson: Telephone Conference held on 8/20/2014 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time 2:06 - 2:23.) (ag, ) (Entered: 08/20/2014)



08/21/2014 41 ORDER: On 8/20/2014, a status conference was held pursuant to this court's 38 Order dated 7/21/2014. Counsel for the parties in the above-styled action, as well as counsel for the parties in Cleveland v. City of Montgomery, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-732, and Watts v. City of Montgomery, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-733, were present. Pursuant to the representations of the parties made at this status conference and by agreement of the parties, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The courts preliminary injunction order (Doc. 18 ) is extended until further order of the court. 2. The 9/8/2014 (Doc. 35 ), deadline for the parties to submit their Rule 26(f) report is continued generally. 3. All outstanding motions are denied with leave to renew. 4. Another Status Conference is set for 10/3/2014 at 02:00 PM by telephone before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. Counsel for defendant are to arrange for the conference to be conducted by telephone. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/21/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, AG.(dmn, ) (Entered: 08/21/2014)



10/02/2014 42 ORDER that the Status Conference set for 10/3/2014 is RESET for 10/6/2014 at 02:00 PM before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/2/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, AG.(dmn, ) (Entered: 10/02/2014)



10/06/2014 43 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson: Status Conference held by telephone on 10/6/2014 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time FTR: 2:05 PM - 2:10 PM.) (war, ) (Entered: 10/06/2014)



10/07/2014 44 ORDER: Based on the representations of the parties made on the record on 10/6/2014, it is ORDERED that another Status Conference is set for 11/7/2014 at 02:00 PM by telephone before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. Counsel for defendant are to arrange for the conference to be conducted by telephone. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/7/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, AG.(dmn, ) (Entered: 10/07/2014)



10/31/2014 45 STIPULATION of Dismissal (Joint) by The City of Montgomery, and All Plaintiffs. (Holliday, Shannon) Modified on 11/3/2014 to add additional filers. (dmn, ) (Entered: 10/31/2014)



10/31/2014 46 MOTION for Joinder of Parties (Unopposed) by The City of Montgomery. (Holliday, Shannon)

(Entered: 10/31/2014)



10/31/2014 47 Joint MOTION for Entry of Final Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by The City of Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit A to Exh. 1)(Holliday, Shannon) (Entered: 10/31/2014)



11/07/2014 48 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson: Status Conference held on 11/7/2014 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time FTR: 2:10 - 2:14.) (war, ) (Entered: 11/07/2014)



11/17/2014 49 ORDER granting 46 Motion for Joinder, as further set out. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/17/14. (scn, ) (Entered: 11/17/2014)



11/17/2014 50 ORDER directing that, pursuant to the joint stipulation of dismissal of plaintiffs' request for class certification and all requests for class-wide relief (doc. no. 45 ), it is ORDERED that the request for class certification and all requests for class-wide relief are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/17/14. (scn, ) (Entered: 11/17/2014)



11/17/2014 51 JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF directing that: (1) The parties joint motion for entry of final declaratory and injunctive relief (doc. no. 47 ) is granted; (2) The parties to the agreement to settle declaratory and injunctive claims (settlement agreement), which is attached to this judgment, are to comply with its terms for the periods set out therein; (3) The plaintiffs request for declaratory and injunctive relief is resolved in full subject only to the further jurisdiction of this court to enforce the settlement agreement for the periods set out therein; (4) The plaintiffs are to notify this court of any material breaches of the settlement agreement after making full attempts to resolve the dispute with the parties as set out in the settlement agreement; the clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/17/14. (Attachments: # 1 Settlement Agreement)(scn, ) (Entered: 11/17/2014)



11/17/2014 52 ORDER directing that another on-the-record status conference (regarding the remaining issues of damages and attorneys fees) is set for December 12, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., as further set out. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/17/14. (Furnished to Calendar/AG)(scn, ) (Entered: 11/17/2014)



11/26/2014 53 ORDER: Based upon the representations of the parties made on the record on 11/7/2014, it is ORDERED that another on-the-record status conference (regarding the remaining issues of damages and attorneys' fees) is RESET for 12/12/2014, at 9:00 AM by telephone before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. Counsel for defendants are to arrange for the conference to be conducted by telephone. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/26/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, AG.(dmn, ) (Entered: 11/26/2014)



12/01/2014 54 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs by Tequila Ballard, Lorenzo Brown, Gavin Bullock, Demetri Colvin, Tamara Dudley, Janet Edwards, Thomas Ellis, Kendrick Maull, Risko McDaniel, Sharnalle Mitchell, Courtney Tubbs, Jermaine Tyler, Carl Williams, Rayshone Williams, Tito Williams, Willie Williams. (McGuire, Joseph) (Entered: 12/01/2014)



12/01/2014 55 ORDER that this matter be and is hereby set for a Mediation Conference on 12/19/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4B in Montgomery, AL before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody. It is further ORDERED that counsel and the parties or a representative with full authority to settle the case shall appear at and attend this conference. If counsel have not held a good faith, face-to-face settlement conference as required in the courts scheduling order, counsel shall hold this conference not less than seven days prior to the date set for mediation. On or before the close of business on December 17, 2014, each party shall provide the undersigned judge with a confidential mediation conference statement. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/1/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, WS. (dmn, ) (Entered: 12/01/2014)



12/04/2014 56 ORDER that: (1) The plaintiffs' 54 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time is granted. (2) Any motion for attorneys' fees and costs shall be filed by 12/31/2014, or within 14 days of final judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claims, whichever is later. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/4/2014. (dmn, ) (Entered: 12/04/2014)



12/12/2014 57 JUDGMENT: There are only two remaining issues in this litigation: damages and attorneys' fees. Because the parties have resolved the issue of damages, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court that the damages claim is dismissed. The resolution of the issue of attorneys' fees is continued generally, and the court retains jurisdiction to resolve that issue. With regard to the issue of attorneys' fees, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) Within seven days of the completion of their mediation of the issue of attorneys fees, the parties are to file a notice reflecting that mediation has beencompleted and indicating whether the issue of attorneys fees has been resolved. (2) If the parties do not resolve the issue of attorneys fees, the plaintiffs have 28 days after the filing of the mediation notice to file a motion forattorneys fees. The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter thisdocument on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to FRCO 58. This case is closed. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/12/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(dmn, ) (Entered: 12/12/2014)



12/12/2014 58 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson: Telephone Conference held on 12/12/2014 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time FTR: 9:05 - 9:14.) (war, ) (Entered: 12/12/2014)



12/16/2014 59 ORDER that the Mediation Conference presently set for 12/19/2014, be and is hereby RESET for 1/14/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4B in Montgomery, AL before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody. It is further ORDERED that counsel and the parties or a representative with full authority to settle the case shall appear at and attend this conference. The plaintiff should be prepared to present documents substantiating any claims for damages. If counsel have not held a good faith, face-to-face settlement conference as required in the courts scheduling order, counsel shall hold this conference not less than seven daysprior to the date set for mediation. On or before the close of business on 1/12/2015,each party shall provide the undersigned judge with a confidential mediation conference statement. The statement should not be filed with the clerk's office and should not be served on the other parties. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/16/2014. Copies furnished to calendar group, WS. (dmn, ) (Entered: 12/16/2014)

01/14/2015 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody: Settlement Conference held on 1/14/2015 (No PDF Attached). (ws, ) (Entered: 02/09/2015)



01/16/2015 60 JOINT NOTICE by The City of Montgomery, and Plaintiffs. (Holliday, Shannon) Modified on 1/20/2015 to add additional filers. (dmn, ) (Entered: 01/16/2015)



04/02/2015 61 NOTICE by Lorenzo Brown, Gavin Bullock, Tamara Dudley, Janet Edwards, Jermaine Tyler, Carl Williams, Rayshone Williams, Tito Williams Notice of Willful Violation of Court Order (Karakatsanis, Alec) (Entered: 04/02/2015)

04/06/2015 Set Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 4/7/2015 08:00 AM by telephone before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. (war, ) (Entered: 04/06/2015)



04/07/2015 62 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson: Telephone Conference held on 4/7/2015 (PDF available for court use only). (Recording Time FTR: 8:07 AM - 8:28 AM.) (war, ) (Entered: 04/07/2015)



04/07/2015 63 ORDER: Based on the representations made on the record today by the defendants that the defendants have taken corrective action, it is ORDERED that the court will not take any further action with regard to the allegations contained in the notice of willful violation of court order (doc. no. 61 ). Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 4/7/2015. (dmn, ) (Entered: 04/07/2015)

JUDGMENT: There are only two remaining issues in this litigation: damages and attorneys' fees. Because the parties have resolved the issue of damages, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court that the damages claim is dismissed. The resolution of the issue of attorneys' fees is continued generally, and the court retains jurisdiction to resolve that issue. With regard to the issue of attorneys' fees, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) Within seven days of the completion of their mediation of the issue of attorneys fees, the parties are to file a notice reflecting that mediation has beencompleted and indicating whether the issue of attorneys fees has been resolved. (2) If the parties do not resolve the issue of attorneys fees, the plaintiffs have 28 days after the filing of the mediation notice to file a motion forattorneys fees. The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter thisdocument on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to FRCO 58. This case is closed. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/12/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(dmn, ) (Entered: 12/12/2014)