Case: Edwards v. Red Hills Community Probation

1:15-cv-00067 | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia

Filed Date: April 10, 2015

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On April 10, 2015, five indigent probationers brought this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law against Red Hills Community Probation, its employees, and city police officers. Red Hills is a private probation company that contracts with local Georgia governments to supervise probation cases in municipal courts. The plaintiffs, represented by the Southern Center for Human Rights, sought declaratory and injunct…

On April 10, 2015, five indigent probationers brought this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law against Red Hills Community Probation, its employees, and city police officers. Red Hills is a private probation company that contracts with local Georgia governments to supervise probation cases in municipal courts.

The plaintiffs, represented by the Southern Center for Human Rights, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, class certification, and damages, claiming that the defendants operate an unconstitutional and fraudulent probation system. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had a longstanding practice of detaining indigent probationers to coerce immediate payment of city court fines and probation supervision fees. Further, the plaintiffs alleged that Red Hills falsely represented to former probationers that they were required to continue to report to Red Hills personnel and continue to pay fines and fees even after the probationers' sentences were complete.

On September 17, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion for consent order, indicating they had reached an agreement with the defendants resolving all of their claims. On February 1, 2016, Judge Leslie J. Abrams issued the consent order. According to the consent order, the defendants were to ensure that (1) probation officers would not attempt to arrest probationers for failure to pay fines or fees without a good-faith and objective belief that the probationer had the ability to pay; (2) probation officers were to instruct probationer to request that his or her friends or family pay the probationer’s fines or fees; and (3) probation officers, the Court, and all City employees follow all laws regarding the treatment of probationers. The consent order also mandated training for the probation officers and that all probationers be advised of their rights. The consent order was to remain in place for four years.

On March 1, 2016, the parties filed stipulation of dismissal. The case is now closed, though the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the consent order. As of April, 2020, there has been no further action in the docket.

Summary Authors

Robert Lake (6/16/2015)

Virginia Weeks (2/18/2018)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14429679/parties/edwards/


Judge(s)

Gardner, Leslie Abrams (Georgia)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Geraghty, Sarah E. (Georgia)

Primerano, Ryan (Georgia)

Attorney for Defendant

Hyde, W. Brent (Georgia)

Rollins, Raleigh W. (Georgia)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:15-cv-00067

Docket [PACER]

March 1, 2016

March 1, 2016

Docket
1

1:15-cv-00067

Complaint

April 10, 2015

April 10, 2015

Complaint
31

1:15-cv-00067

Consent Order

Feb. 1, 2016

Feb. 1, 2016

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14429679/edwards/

Last updated Dec. 17, 2024, 9:45 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Georgia

Case Type(s):

Criminal Justice (Other)

Special Collection(s):

Fines/Fees/Bail Reform (Criminalization of Poverty)

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 10, 2015

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Five indigent probationers, individually and on behalf of a putative class similarly situated and affected

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Southern Center for Human Rights (SCHR)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Pending

Defendants

Red Hills Community Probation, LLC, Private Entity/Person

City of Pelham, City

City of Bainbridge, City

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

State law

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Unreasonable search and seizure

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Content of Injunction:

Training

Order Duration: 2016 - 2020

Issues

General/Misc.:

Courts

Discharge & termination plans

Pattern or Practice

Poverty/homelessness

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Over/Unlawful Detention (facilities)