Filed Date: July 6, 2016
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On July 6, 2016, indigent Virginia residents brought this putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia after suffering indefinite suspension of their driver's licenses pursuant to Virginia Code § 46.2-395 for failure to pay court costs and fines that they could not afford. The plaintiffs sued the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by private attorneys, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief and class certification. They claimed that the Commonwealth's scheme of suspending licenses to coerce payment of money owed to the courts unfairly punished people for being poor, and that suspending their licenses was a violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case was assigned to Judge Norman K. Moon.
On November 4, 2016, Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe granted the NAACP's motion for leave to file an amicus brief. On November 20, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest urging the court to conclude that the plaintiffs had set forth a plausible claim for relief that the alleged driver's license suspension practices used by the defendant violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The DOJ argued that suspension of a person's driver's license in response to the failure to pay court debt without providing a person with adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard constituted a deprivation of a protected interest without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, the DOJ argued that suspending the driver's licenses of those who failed to pay fines without inquiring into whether the failure to pay was willful or instead the result of an inability to pay may result in penalizing indigent individuals solely because of their poverty, in violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
On October 3, 2016, the defendant moved to dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim. On March 13, 2017, Judge Moon dismissed the case without prejudice, concluding that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. He found that "Congress and the Constitution have not granted federal district courts the authority to hear appeals from state courts." Since this case involved suspension orders issued by Virginia state courts, Judge Moon concluded that the plaintiffs were required to seek relief from state appellate courts and ultimately the United States Supreme Court. Furthermore, a federal court could only hear a case if it could grant some sort of remedy to the plaintiffs. In this case, because state courts, rather than the Commissioner, had suspended the licenses, a court order against the Commissioner would not provide such a remedy and so the court held the plaintiffs had no standing. Finally, Judge Moon found that the suit was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, which prevents federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over suits brought by citizens against non-consenting state defendants. The court found that the Ex parte Young exception, which permits such suits where the sued official has a "special relation" with the challenged statute or action, did not apply in this case. 2017 WL 963234.
The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On May 23, 2018, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remanded the case back to the district court with instructions to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. Circuit Judge Henry F. Floyd wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Allyson K. Duncan joined. The Circuit Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs' appeal because the district court's dismissal without prejudice was not a final order and because the plaintiffs might still be able to cure the deficiencies identified by the district court by amending their complaint. Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory wrote a dissenting opinion because he would have found that the district court's dismissal was an appealable final order. 734 Fed.Appx. 858.
On remand to the district court, on June 22, 2018, Judge Moon granted leave to the plaintiffs to amend or clarify their complaint. On September 11, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction. They asked the court to enjoin the Commissioner from enforcing the statutes against the plaintiffs and future suspended class members without notice and determination of ability to pay, to remove any current suspensions of the plaintiffs' driver's licenses imposed under the statute, and to enjoin the Commissioner from charging a fee to reinstate the plaintiffs' licenses if there were no other restrictions on their licenses. On December 21, 2018, Judge Moon granted the plaintiffs' motion for the preliminary injunction, finding it likely that the plaintiffs would succeed in establishing that the Virginia statute violated procedural due process and that the remaining factors relevant to the issuance of a preliminary injunction weighed in favor of the plaintiffs. 355 F. Supp. 3d 514.
On April 23, 2019, the defendant moved to dismiss the case as moot, or in the alternative sought a stay of the proceedings, arguing that a budget amendment by Virginia Governor Ralph Northam that reinstated driver’s licenses that had been revoked for failure to pay any fines ended any harm against the plaintiffs. Both the defendant and plaintiffs then moved for summary judgement on June 3, 2019.
On June 28, 2019, Judge Moon issued an order granting the motion to stay and denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court found that the budget amendment only halted enforcement of the law, and thus there was a reasonable expectation the plaintiffs would again be subjected to the same harm. But the court also granted the motion to stay the proceedings pending the 2020 session of Virginia’s General Assembly, citing the possibility that the Virginia General Assembly would repeal the law. The stay was ordered through April 17, 2020, and then extended until May 15, 2020.
On May 7, 2020, the parties submitted a joint stipulation of dismissal after the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation eliminating the contested Virginia Code § 46.2-395 and requiring the DMV Commissioner to reinstate, without payment of fees, driver's licenses suspended under the law. The parties agreed that the legislative action mooted the case, but disputed whether the plaintiffs should be awarded attorneys' fees. The court adopted the stipulation of dismissal the same day and dismissed the case as moot, while retaining jurisdiction to decide the issue of attorneys' fees. Judge Moon requested that each party brief the remaining question of attorneys' fees.
On December 9, 2020, Magistrate Judge Hoppe held a hearing on the motion for attorneys' fees. On February 16, he issued a report concluding that a plaintiff who won a preliminary injunction but whose case was later dismissed as moot was not a prevailing party for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and therefore not entitled to attorneys' fees, and recommended that the court deny the plaintiffs' motion. On June 4, 2021, the court delivered an opinion adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and denying the request for attorneys' fees.
On July 2, 2021, the plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision to deny attorneys' fees. The following year, on June 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling, agreeing that winning a preliminary injunction does not make a plaintiff a prevailing party. 37 F.4th 977. The plaintiffs petitioned for a rehearing en banc before the entire Fourth Circuit, which was granted on August 9, 2022.
On August 7, 2023, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of attorneys' fees and remanded back to the district court for further proceedings. The Fourth Circuit held that its previous bright line rule was too stringent, and preliminary injunctions can sometimes constitute “enduring, merits-based relief that satisfies all the requisites of the prevailing party standard,” making the plaintiffs in this case eligible for a fee award. 77 F.4th 200.
On August 30, 2023, the district court referred the plaintiffs' petition for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses to U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. About a month later, the court stayed briefing on the issue of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses while waiting to see if the defendant would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
As of November 16, 2023, the case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Saeeda Joseph-Charles (11/20/2016)
Virginia Weeks (3/15/2018)
Lisa Limb (3/20/2019)
Cedar Hobbs (11/3/2019)
Sandy Sulzer (11/8/2022)
Venesa Haska (11/16/2023)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4536810/parties/stinnie-v-holcomb/
Abel, Benjamin Peter (Virginia)
Bauer, Mary Catherine (Virginia)
Aramburu, J. Richard (Virginia)
Bains, Chiraag (District of Columbia)
Bannister, James W (Virginia)
Abel, Benjamin Peter (Virginia)
Bauer, Mary Catherine (Virginia)
Baugh, David Preston (Virginia)
Blank, Jonathan Todd (Virginia)
Blustein, Benjamin J. (Virginia)
Checkovich, Tennille Jo (Virginia)
Doolittle, Kirsten L. (Virginia)
Futterman, Craig Benson (Virginia)
Gregory, Rodney Glenn (Virginia)
Hayes, Dennis Courtland (Virginia)
Kelley, Mateya Beth (Virginia)
Kendrick, Leslie Carolyn (Virginia)
Lange, Laura Ann (Pennsylvania)
Levy-Lavelle, Patrick (Virginia)
Pazandak, Alyssa M. (Virginia)
Sheppard, William J. (Virginia)
Sussman, Michael H. (Virginia)
Bourne, Jeffrey Michael (Virginia)
Cox, Trevor Stephen (Virginia)
Davidson, Nancy Hull (Virginia)
Eckstein, Maya Miriam (Virginia)
Gilman, Neil Keith (District of Columbia)
Hardy, Ryan Spreague (Virginia)
Hurd, William Henry (Virginia)
Jagdmann, Judith W. (Virginia)
Kallen, Michelle Shane (Virginia)
O'Shea, Margaret Hoehl (Virginia)
Parker, David Mitchell (Virginia)
Parrish, Christian Arrowsmith (Virginia)
Raphael, Stuart Alan (Virginia)
Ritenour, Rhodes Beahm (Virginia)
Spencer, Jeffrey Alan (Virginia)
Thompson, Farnaz Farkish (Virginia)
Aramburu, J. Richard (Virginia)
Bains, Chiraag (District of Columbia)
Blagg, Jennifer Lynne (Virginia)
Buchanan, Michael F. (Virginia)
Bullock, Robert B. (District of Columbia)
Burke, Luke Anthony (Virginia)
Curwood, Craig Juraj (Virginia)
Dean, Philip Justus (Virginia)
Feybush, Hilary Erin (Virginia)
Finestone, Stephen D. (Virginia)
Fishwick, John Palmer (Virginia)
Foster, Lisa A. (District of Columbia)
Gallagher, Timothy James (Virginia)
Golston, Larry Apaul (Virginia)
Goodman-Morris, Courtney (Virginia)
Greenberger, Jordan Daniel (Virginia)
Grenfell, James Byrnes (Virginia)
Hilverda, Brian James (Virginia)
Johnston, Maureen (District of Columbia)
Killebrew, Paul (District of Columbia)
Kolod, Alexandra Pearl (Virginia)
Lash, Karen (District of Columbia)
Lillienstein, Robert D. (Virginia)
Matern, Matthew John (Virginia)
McCulley, Elizabeth G (Virginia)
McGillivary, Gregory Keith (Virginia)
McWilliams, Bryan Scott (Virginia)
Moossy, Robert J. (District of Columbia)
Rosenbaum, Steven H. (District of Columbia)
Schmedlin, William Francis (Virginia)
Shoemake, Derek Alan (Virginia)
Silberfein, Scott Evan (Virginia)
Tenenbaum, J. Samuel (Virginia)
Volek, Jude (District of Columbia)
Wayne, Seth (District of Columbia)
Wells, Brenda Marie (Virginia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4536810/stinnie-v-holcomb/
Last updated Dec. 17, 2024, 5:57 p.m.
State / Territory: Virginia
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Special Collection(s):
Fines/Fees/Bail Reform (Criminalization of Poverty)
DOJ Civil Rights Division Statements of Interest
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 6, 2016
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Three individuals on behalf of a proposed class of people whose licenses are or will be suspended by the Virginia DMV due to a failure to pay a court debt.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Mooted before ruling
Defendants
Virgina Department of Motor Vehicles, State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Order Duration: 2018 - 2020
Issues
General/Misc.: