Debtors’ Prison Project

Carter is a putative class action brought on behalf of low-income municipal court defendants in Montgomery who were jailed when they could not pay debt arising from minor misdemeanors and traffic violations. Montgomery contracted with for-profit probation company Judicial Correction Services (JCS) to collect debt. JCS’s system was “offender-funded,” meaning the company didn’t charge the City a penny for its debt-collection services. Instead, the Montgomery Municipal Court JCS placed traffic debtors on supervised “probation” with JCS. These probationers were ordered to pay $40 every month in probation fees on top of their underlying fines. It was a lucrative business model: JCS took in over $15 million in fees in Montgomery alone — and almost $60 million statewide before it was forced out of Alabama. When probationers could not afford to pay, JCS petitioned the court to revoke their probation and have them arrested, and the court “commuted” (or converted) their fines to days in jail — without an ability-to-pay determination. This practice violated probationers’ Due Process and Sixth Amendment rights. Our case seeks to hold the City of Montgomery, JCS, and a contract public defender responsible for these alleged violations of our clients’ constitutional and state-law rights.

In July 2020, the district court denied the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We are currently working to certify the classes and have appealed the trial court’s order denying our motion for class certification to the Eleventh Circuit. The Carter appeal has been consolidated with the appeal in a sister case, McCullough v. City of Montgomery.

Co-counsel: Evans Law Firm (Birmingham, AL) and Terrell Marshall Law Group (Seattle, WA).

Briefs and documents:

District court 

• Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition to City’s Motion for Summary Judgment (February 21, 2020)
• Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition to JCS’s Motion for Summary Judgment (February 21, 2020)
• Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition to Branch Kloess’s Motion for Summary Judgment (February 21, 2020)
• District Court Decision Denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (July 7, 2020)
  • Blog post on decision
• Plaintiffs’ Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification (September 14, 2020)
• Plaintiffs’ Joint Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification (December 4, 2020)

11th Circuit 

• Plaintiffs’ first Rule 23(f) Petition for Permission to Appeal (January 6, 2021)
• 11th Circuit Order granting petition, vacating and remanding class certification decision (February 3, 2021)
• Plaintiffs’ second Rule 23(f) Petition for Permission to Appeal (July 23, 2021)
• Brief of Amici Curiae The Southern Poverty Law Center, Civil Rights Corps, Public Good Law Center and Law Professors in Support of Plaintiff-Petitioner’s Petition for Permission to Appeal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) (June 11, 2021)
• Appellants’ Opening Brief (September 9, 2022)
• Brief of Amici Curiae Civil Rights Organizations and Law Professors in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants (October 25, 2022)

Graff is a pending federal putative class action against a private debt collector and Oklahoma district attorneys. It targets their use of failure-to-pay warrants and jail time to extract payments from indigent debtors. Georgetown Law School’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) is counsel for the plaintiffs. The District of Oklahoma dismissed the case on federal abstention grounds, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Tenth Circuit.

We partnered with Oklahoma Policy Institute (OPI) to file an amicus brief that

1. Places the behavior of the defendants in context by examining the steep rise in fines and fees in recent years, the harsh consequences for debtors, the futility of threatening and jailing people who cannot pay, and the available alternatives to this approach; and
2. Explains how the district court failed to consider federal constitutional requirements in its discussion of how arrest for nonpayment and ability-to-pay determinations work under state law, and how it misapplied federal precedent on abstention doctrines.

The brief draws on OPI’s years-long work analyzing the administration of court fines and fees, and its database compiling millions of court records to identify trends in debt and collection.

Counsel for plaintiffs: Georgetown Law School’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP)

Briefs and documents:

• Public Justice/OPI amicus brief (August 21, 2021)
• Oral argument recording (date)

Mendoza, et al. v. Strickler is a putative class action filed by the Oregon Law Center (OLC) challenging the constitutionality of Oregon’s automatic suspension of driver’s licenses for nonpayment of traffic debt without an ability-to-pay hearing. The suit argues that suspending licenses under these circumstances is akin to punishing people for their indigency, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court dismissed the case and the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed in a split decision. OLC is now seeking a rehearing en banc.

Public Justice, along with the ACLU Racial Justice Project, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and ACLU of Oregon, filed an amicus brief in support of that petition. Our brief focuses on the racially disparate impact of license suspension in Oregon, and the cycles of criminalization that result from a suspension.

Briefs and documents:

• Brief of Amici Curiae the American Civil Liberties Foundation, the ACLU of Oregon, Inc., Public Justice, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the ACLU of Washington Foundation in Support of Plaintiff-Appellants’ Motion for Reconsideration en Banc (December 8, 2022)

In partnership with the ACLU of Southern California, the Western Center for Law and Poverty, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, and other members of California’s Debt-Free Justice Coalition, we successfully fought the practice of automatically imposing a $300 “civil assessment” on traffic court and criminal court defendants who either do not pay their fine on time or do not appear in court to defend themselves. In particular, we sent demand letters and follow-up advocacy letters to superior courts in multiple counties describing how their imposition of civil assessments violated California law, due process and equal protection provisions of the state and federal constitutions, and constitutional prohibitions on self-interested actors imposing financial penalties. We also court watched, collected records from courts through public records requests, and identified several plaintiffs for the case we were building.

As these efforts were underway, members of the coalition working on the legislative side were able to secure the governor’s commitment to dropping the civil assessment penalty from $300 to $100, but not ending it outright. With the governor’s support, a bill (AB 199) was passed capping civil assessments at $100, ending direct financial incentives courts had to collect civil assessments, and waiving all outstanding civil assessment debt, which totaled at least $400M to as much as $800M (efforts are underway to get a more precise amount). We continue to work with our coalition partners to track the implementation of AB 199. Our hope is to convince courts to stop imposing civil assessments altogether.

Documents:

Letter on behalf of Public Justice, ACLU of Southern California, Western Center on Law and Poverty, and Social Justice Legal Foundation to Kern County Superior Court urging the court to stop practice of automatically imposing $300 civil assessments without individualized evaluation and adequate notice (April 28, 2022)

We represent an Oregon father, Ken Dunham, who owes more than $3,000 in fines and fees that were imposed for a few minor crimes committed over a decade ago while he was struggling with mental illness and drug addiction. Ken is unable to pay this outstanding debt because he cannot find employment due to his disability and criminal record. Expungement of his criminal record would drastically improve his chances of getting a job, especially a position that could accommodate his disability. Like a lot of individuals who have encountered the criminal legal system, Ken is not eligible for expungement until he has paid off all his debt. He’s trapped, unable to get a job until his record is expunged and unable to expunge his record until he earns the money to pay off his court debt.

Oregon law permits a defendant to petition a court to reduce or waive outstanding court debt if the defendant is not in contempt — that is, has not willfully refused to pay. With our help, Ken petitioned the court in February 2022 to reduce or waive his outstanding debt, arguing that if his debt was not waived, it would likely be an unconstitutional fine in violation of the Excessive Fines Clause. The court summarily denied the petition from the bench, and we appealed the decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals. We are arguing that the first court’s denial and failure to consider Ken’s financial circumstances was a violation of Oregon statutory law and the state and federal Excessive Fines Clauses. Our hope is not only to help Ken move on from his criminal history, but to make good law that will benefit others in Oregon fighting against unpayable and unfair fines fees.

Co-counsel: Oregon Metropolitan Public Defender’s Community Law Division; Oregon Law Center

Briefs and documents:

• Appellant’s Opening Brief (October 13, 2022)

Seattle resident Steven Long was living in his pick-up truck after being evicted from his home. The city towed and impounded his vehicle after it was parked in an abandoned gravel lot for over 72 hours. Steven was then required to pay over $500 in impound fees to recover the truck. Steven filed a lawsuit and argued that this fine violated the Excessive Fines Clause. The state court of appeals upheld the fine, concluding that it was not excessive because it went toward repaying the city for towing costs, and because the city council had specifically authorized the fine. When the case was appealed to the state high court, we filed an amicus brief in support of Steven. Joining us on the brief were Georgetown Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, and the Rutherford Institute.

In August 2021, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously reversed the lower court’s decision. The court concluded that, in assessing whether a fine is unconstitutionally excessive, courts must consider the individual circumstances of the person being fined and that the appellate court had incorrectly failed to do so. Applying that standard to Steven Long’s case, the court held that the fine violated the Excessive Fines Clause.

The court used our brief to support several critical conclusions. First, the court recognized that when weighing the seriousness of a defendant’s conduct, courts must consider the actual circumstances of what happened. Here, the court recognized that Steven’s conduct lacked seriousness because even among traffic offenses, the violation was relatively minor. Second, the court recognized that a defendant’s individual circumstances must be considered when weighing the severity of the fine. Relying on sources cited in our brief — including statistics showing that Seattle residents need about $2,000 per month to meet basic needs, and studies showing that poor offenders suffer additional financial consequences as a result of a fine — the court concluded that the $500 fine was too severe when applied to Steven. The Washington Supreme Court’s decision correctly recognizes the crucial role that the Excessive Fines Clause serves as a protection against unjust and unfair fines. This right to be free from excessive fines is perhaps more important now than ever, as state and local governments increasingly shift the costs of the criminal legal system onto those who pass through their courts.

Briefs and documents:

• Brief of Public Justice, The Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, The National Center for Law And Economic Justice, and The Rutherford Institute as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner (February 21, 2021)
• Washington Supreme Court Decision (August 12, 2021)
• Blog post

Johnson (formerly Blake) was putative class action filed by the Oregon Law Center challenging attempts by the City of Grants Pass to use municipal fines to punish its unhoused residents for sleeping and resting outdoors, even though those people have no place else to go. The district court certified a class of involuntarily homeless residents and entered an injunction against the City, holding that the city’s policies violated two provisions of the Eighth Amendment: the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause and the Excessive Fines Clause. The City appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and DPP filed an amicus brief defending the lower court’s decision. Our brief argued that the lower court properly held that any fine imposed on unhoused individuals for conduct directly stemming from homelessness would violate the Excessive Fines Clause. In September 2022, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision on Punishments Clause grounds. In January 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted petition to hear the case. Oral arguments were presented on April 22, 2024. Public Justice submitted a brief to the Supreme Court on behalf of 57 social scientists who have studied and published research on the effects of punishment schemes like Grants Pass’—namely, they do not decrease homelessness, but they do promote needless suffering.

Briefs and documents:

• Brief of Public Justice, ACLU of Northern California, ACLU of Southern California, ACLU of Oregon, Institute For Justice, National Center for Law and Economic Justice, and Rutherford Institute as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees (June 8, 2021)
• Ninth Circuit decision (September 8, 2022)
• Public Justice brief to the U.S. Supreme Court: Press Release | Brief of 57 Social Scientists With Published Research on Homelessness As Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents (April 3, 2024)

This is a class action lawsuit against the County and City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD), the Sheriff of Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), and the Chief of the LAPD, challenging the defendants’ policy of jailing arrested individuals who are unable to pay the monetary amounts set by the County’s uniform “bail schedules.”

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Phillip Urquidi, Terilyn Goldson, Daniel Martinez, Arthur Lopez, Susana Perez, and Gerardo Campos, all of whom are in jail because they and their families could not afford to pay the arbitrary amounts dictated by the bail schedule. They are joined as plaintiffs by an interfaith coalition of CLUE (Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice); CLUE Executive Director Reverend Jennifer Gutierrez; Reverend Gary Bernard Williams; Pastor Saint Mark, UMC and Board Member of CLUE; and Rabbi Aryeh Cohen, Professor of Rabbinic Literature, American Jewish University. These clergy plaintiffs are challenging the unconstitutional use of their taxes to fund the unlawful detention of individuals who are unable to pay bail.

View the case page here. 

Co-counsel: Civil Rights Corps, Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP, Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes, LLP, and Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP 

Briefs and documents:

• Second Amended Class Action Complaint (April 10, 2023)
• Press release (November 14, 2022)
• Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction (November 14, 2022)
• Declaration of Phillip Urquidi (November 14, 2022)
• Declaration of Gerardo Campos (November 14, 2022)
• Declaration of Terilyn Goldson (November 14, 2022)
• Declaration of Arthur Lopez (November 14, 2022)
• Declaration of Daniel Martinez (November 14, 2022)
• Declaration of Susana Perez (November 14, 2022)
• Declaration of Christine Scott-Hayward, Ph.D. (November 14, 2022)
• Declaration of Micah Clark Moody (November 14, 2022)
• Declaration of Garrett Miller (November 14, 2022)
• Declaration of Meredith Gallen (November 14, 2022)
• Order granting TRO (November 15, 2022)
• Gary Williams, Op-Ed: In the new year, let’s end the money bail policy that rips families apart (L.A. Times, December 30, 2022)
• Dr. Danielle Dupuy-Watson, The price of freedom and criminalization of poverty (Los Angeles Blade, January 16, 2023)

We filed this lawsuit on behalf of two low-income Iowans who allegedly owed court debt for their public defender fees to the State of Iowa. They were represented by the public defenders for misdemeanor cases. Debt collector Linebarger sent letters to our clients threatening that if they did not pay immediately, their driver’s licenses could be revoked or they could be jailed — neither of which is permissible under state law. The letters also failed to disclose that Linebarger added a 25% collection fee to the principal debt, or to itemize the debts owed. Our complaint alleged that Linebarger’s letters violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Iowa state law, and that Linebarger’s efforts to collect a debt from one of the Plaintiffs that no court had ordered her to pay violated her constitutional due process rights. This lawsuit argued that debt owed for appointed counsel fees constitutes consumer debt, and people who owe such debt are therefore protected from abusive collection practices under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case settled in September 2021.

Co-counsel: Iowa Legal Aid (Des Moines, IA) and Terrell Marshall Law Group (Seattle, WA).

Briefs and documents:

• Complaint (Sept. 1, 2020)
• Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (redacted) (Dec. 20, 2021)
• Reply to Defendant’s Response to Fee Petition (redacted) (March 21, 2022)
• Clark Kaufman, Lawsuit: Iowa court debt collected illegally, with millions routed to private firm (Iowa Capital Dispatch Sept. 16, 2020)
• Clark Kaufman, Secret settlement reached in dispute over Iowa Judicial Branch debt collection (Iowa Capital Dispatch Apr. 29, 2022)

The Debtors’ Prison Project worked with Public Justice’s Access to Justice attorneys to assemble a team of appellate experts to handle this appeal. The original case was filed on behalf of the surviving family members of a pretrial detainee, Erie Moore, who died after he was assaulted and beaten by guards at a for-profit prison in Monroe, Louisiana.

Mr. Moore was arrested for disturbing the peace, a misdemeanor offense, and taken to a for-profit prison in Louisiana. A day later, after prison guards dropped him on his head, shackled him, beat him, and sprayed him with toxic chemicals, Mr. Moore was comatose. He never regained consciousness and died a month later. His family filed suit under § 1983 (the federal civil rights statute) and state tort law against the individual officers involved, the private prison facility and management company, and the City. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on almost every claim. Ultimately, ten different rulings were on appeal, including several summary judgment rulings.

In a powerful decision, the Fifth Circuit reversed on almost every issue. The court held that a reasonable jury could find the prison’s employees caused Mr. Moore’s death and that those employees are not entitled to qualified immunity from liability. In addition, the court held that a reasonable jury could find the private prison corporations liable for implementing policies that caused Mr. Moore’s death.

Finally, closely following Public Justice’s briefing on the issue, the Fifth Circuit held that the private companies may be held liable for punitive damages under § 1983, and they acted with such extreme disregard to Mr. Moore’s rights that a jury could award punitive damages. In reaching this decision, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s holding that punitive damages under § 1983 aren’t available against corporations as a matter of law. While the court did not reach the issue of whether private corporations can be vicariously liable for their employees’ civil rights violations, the court’s analysis on punitive damages signaled that it agreed with our reasoning on this point.

The defendants sought rehearing en banc, specifically urging the full court to overturn the panel’s ruling that private companies can be held liable for punitive damages in civil rights cases. In August 2022, the court denied that petition.

Co-counsel: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (Washington, DC); Nelson Cameron (Shreveport, LA); Howard University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic.

Briefs and documents:

• Appellants’ Opening Brief (June 14, 2021)
• Brief of Amici Curiae Promise of Justice Initiative, National Police Accountability Project, ACLU of Louisiana, and Tulane Law School Civil Rights and Federal Practice Clinic in Support of Appellants (June 21, 2021)
• Brief Amicus Curiae of Rights Behind Bars (June 21, 2021)
• Reply Brief (October 1, 2021)
• Oral argument recording (May 11, 2022)
• S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision (July 22, 2022)
• Press Release about victory (July 27, 2022)
• Order denying denial of petition for rehearing en banc (August 19, 2022)