Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Thank you!

DONATE

Case: McKee v. City of Amarillo

2:16-cv-00009 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Filed Date: Jan. 14, 2016

Closed Date: 2016

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On January 14, 2016, two indigent women that previously served imprisonment terms at the Randall County Jail filed this complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff sued the city of Amarillo under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought compensatory damages, claiming the City of Amarillo violated their Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Rights. The plaintiffs claimed that the City of Amarillo …

On January 14, 2016, two indigent women that previously served imprisonment terms at the Randall County Jail filed this complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff sued the city of Amarillo under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought compensatory damages, claiming the City of Amarillo violated their Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Rights. The plaintiffs claimed that the City of Amarillo installed its own debtor’s prison through its municipal code that required residents that owed fees and fines to “Pay or lay.” Although the city provided an installment plan in order to make payments, once an individual missed a payment, a warrant for his or her arrest would be immediately issued. Hearings to determine a person’s indigency or alternate methods of enforcement are not required by the municipal code. The plaintiffs were both single mothers with part-time jobs as their only source of income. Both struggled to secure consistent employment. One plaintiff had an income of $40.00 a month and the court ordered a payment plan that required her to pay $232.00 in biweekly payments until her debt was paid. When the plaintiff informed the court she would be unable to meet this plan and request modification, she was immediately denied modification and sent to jail for eighteen days. The other plaintiff was unaware that she could assert indigency or request a payment plan, she believed her only option was to “pay or lay.” The plaintiff did not have the money to pay all of her fines and served eighteen days in jail. The plaintiffs sought class certification on behalf of all indigent persons adjudicated by the City of Amarillo Municipal Court that owed fines or court costs and ordered to serve imprisonment terms for failure to pay the adjudicated fines and costs.

The defendant responded to the complaint with a motion to dismiss on February 11, 2016. The defense argued that a city could not be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an alleged policy of wrongfully jailing persons because the decisions are solely made by the municipal judges who are acting in their judicial capacity and the city of Amarillo have no control or influence. The defendant further argued that the complaint failed to allege an official policy promoted by a municipal policymaker that was the moving force behind the constitutional violation claims. The Court did not immediately address the defendant’s motion, instead, it permitted the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. The plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint on March 2, 2016. In the amended complaint the plaintiffs addressed the concerns provided by the defendant in its earlier motion to dismiss and expanded its Fourteenth Amendment violation claim to include court administrators and the police department. The plaintiffs alleged that the police department had a policy and practice of jailing indigent people without inquiring as to their reasons for nonpayment, determining whether they were indigent, or considering adequate alternatives to incarceration.

On March 16, 2016, the City of Amarillo filed another motion to dismiss on similar grounds of its previous motion to dismiss and that the plaintiffs’ new claims were conclusive and not supported by any factual underpinnings. Once again, the Court did not immediately address the defendant’s motion to dismiss and permitted the plaintiffs to amend their complaint.

The discovery period began and plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on April 4, 2016. The new complaint addressed the defendant’s previous issues and added four new plaintiffs that also served imprisonment terms as punishment for their inability to pay ticket fines and court fees. On April 13, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class on behalf of all indigent persons adjudicated by the City of Amarillo Municipal Court that owed fines or court costs and ordered to serve imprisonment terms for failure to pay the adjudicated fines and costs. The defendant filed several briefs in response to the plaintiffs motion and discovery continued.

On August 8, 2016, Senior Judge Mary Lou Robinson entered an opinion and order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as to all of the plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. The Court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify class as moot due to the previous order to dismiss the case. Judge Robinson entered her final judgment in favor of the defendant and declared that the defendant was entitled to reasonable and necessary costs as a result of the action.

The plaintiffs objected to the defendant’s bill of costs on August 30, 2016. On October 12, 2016, Judge Robinson partially sustained the plaintiffs’ objections and ordered for the plaintiffs’ to pay $3,660.00 to the defendant in costs.

There are no further entries on this docket, inferring that this case is closed.

Summary Authors

Kimberly Goshey (6/4/2019)

People


Judge(s)

Robinson, Mary Lou (Texas)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Blackburn, Jeff (Texas)

Hoffman, Chris G (Texas)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

McKamie, William M (Texas)

McWilliams, Bryan Scott (Texas)

Judge(s)

Robinson, Mary Lou (Texas)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Blackburn, Jeff (Texas)

Hoffman, Chris G (Texas)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

McKamie, William M (Texas)

McWilliams, Bryan Scott (Texas)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:16-cv-00009

Docket [PACER]

Oct. 12, 2016

Oct. 12, 2016

Docket
1

2:16-cv-00009

Complaint

McKee v. Amarillo

Jan. 14, 2016

Jan. 14, 2016

Complaint
19

2:16-cv-00009

Second Amended Complaint

April 4, 2016

April 4, 2016

Complaint
49

2:16-cv-00009

Memorandum Opinion and Order

McKee v. Amarillo

Aug. 8, 2016

Aug. 8, 2016

Order/Opinion

Docket

Last updated Nov. 21, 2022, 3:23 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against City of Amarillo, TX filed by Rachel McKee, Loneta Jackson. (Filing fee $400; Receipt number 0539−7312958) Summons(es) not requested at this time. In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the Judges Copy Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: Attorney Information − Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Sheet with continuation sheet) (Hoffman, Chris) (Entered: 01/14/2016)

Jan. 14, 2016

Jan. 14, 2016

2

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Loneta Jackson, Rachel McKee. (Hoffman, Chris) (Entered: 01/14/2016)

Jan. 14, 2016

Jan. 14, 2016

4

Request for Clerk to issue Summons in a Civil Action filed by Loneta Jackson, Rachel McKee. (Hoffman, Chris) (Entered: 01/20/2016)

Jan. 20, 2016

Jan. 20, 2016

5

Summons Issued as to City of Amarillo, Texas. (daa) (Entered: 01/20/2016)

Jan. 20, 2016

Jan. 20, 2016

6

SUMMONS Returned Executed as to City of Amarillo, Texas ; served on 1/21/2016. (Hoffman, Chris) (Entered: 01/26/2016)

Jan. 26, 2016

Jan. 26, 2016

7

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by City of Amarillo, Texas (McWilliams, Bryan) (Entered: 02/11/2016)

Feb. 11, 2016

Feb. 11, 2016

8

Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by City of Amarillo, Texas re 7 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (McWilliams, Bryan) (Entered: 02/11/2016)

Feb. 11, 2016

Feb. 11, 2016

9

ORIGINAL RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER: Parties shall be ready for trial by 10/24/2016. Counsel shall file a joint report setting forth the status of settlement negotiations by 5/31/2016. Discovery due by 8/22/2016. Pretrial Materials (designation of expert witnesses) due by 4/25/2016 by parties seeking affirmative relief and due by 5/16/2016 by parties opposing affirmative relief. Joinder of Parties due by 4/4/2016. Amended Pleadings due by 8/15/2016. Motions for summary judgment due by 8/22/2016. All other motions except motions in limine due by 9/19/2016. Rule 26(a)(3) disclosures due by 10/11/2016. (Ordered by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 2/16/2016) (djs) (Entered: 02/16/2016)

Feb. 16, 2016

Feb. 16, 2016

10

AMENDED COMPLAINT − Class Action against City of Amarillo, Texas filed by Rachel McKee, Loneta Jackson. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: Attorney Information − Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Hoffman, Chris) (Entered: 03/02/2016)

March 2, 2016

March 2, 2016

11

RESPONSE filed by Loneta Jackson, Rachel McKee re: 7 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Hoffman, Chris) (Entered: 03/03/2016)

March 3, 2016

March 3, 2016

12

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by City of Amarillo, Texas (McWilliams, Bryan) (Entered: 03/16/2016)

March 16, 2016

March 16, 2016

13

Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by City of Amarillo, Texas re 12 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (McWilliams, Bryan) (Entered: 03/16/2016)

March 16, 2016

March 16, 2016

14

NOTICE of Service of Plaintiffs' Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures filed by Loneta Jackson, Rachel McKee (Hoffman, Chris) (Entered: 03/22/2016)

March 22, 2016

March 22, 2016

15

Joint Submission on Discovery Matters − Scheduling/Discovery Plan by City of Amarillo, Texas, Loneta Jackson, Rachel McKee. (Hoffman, Chris) (Entered: 03/22/2016)

March 22, 2016

March 22, 2016

16

ORDER: On March 22, 2016, the parties submitted a Joint Scheduling/Discovery Plan, requesting a modification to the Court's Original Rule 16 Scheduling Order. The request is granted. See Order for details. (Ordered by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 3/23/2016) (daa) (Entered: 03/23/2016)

March 23, 2016

March 23, 2016

17

Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Amend 10 Amended Complaint, filed by Loneta Jackson, Rachel McKee, Janet Cato, Larissa Coil, Joshua Moore, Hilario Nayola with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amendment Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Amendment Exhibit B) (Hoffman, Chris) Modified text on 3/24/2016 (daa). (Entered: 03/24/2016)

March 24, 2016

March 24, 2016

18

ORDER re granting 17 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Amend 10 Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs are to promptly electronically file the amended complaint as proposed. (Ordered by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 4/1/2016) (awc) (Entered: 04/01/2016)

April 1, 2016

April 1, 2016

20

RESPONSE filed by Janet Cato, Larissa Coil, Loneta Jackson, Rachel McKee, Joshua Moore, Hilario Nayola re: 12 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Hoffman, Chris) (Entered: 04/06/2016)

April 6, 2016

April 6, 2016

21

MOTION to Certify Class filed by Janet Cato, Larissa Coil, Loneta Jackson, Rachel McKee, Joshua Moore, Hilario Nayola with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Hoffman, Chris) (Entered: 04/13/2016)

April 13, 2016

April 13, 2016

22

Appendix in Support filed by Janet Cato, Larissa Coil, Loneta Jackson, Rachel McKee, Joshua Moore, Hilario Nayola re 21 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s)) (Hoffman, Chris) (Entered: 04/13/2016)

April 13, 2016

April 13, 2016

23

REPLY filed by City of Amarillo, Texas re: 12 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (McWilliams, Bryan) (Entered: 04/20/2016)

April 20, 2016

April 20, 2016

24

Designation of Experts by Janet Cato, Larissa Coil, Loneta Jackson, Rachel McKee, Joshua Moore, Hilario Nayola. (Hoffman, Chris) (Entered: 05/23/2016)

May 23, 2016

May 23, 2016

25

MOTION to Quash filed by City of Amarillo, Texas with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (McWilliams, Bryan) (Entered: 05/23/2016)

May 23, 2016

May 23, 2016

26

Amended MOTION to Quash filed by City of Amarillo, Texas with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (McWilliams, Bryan) (Entered: 05/24/2016)

May 24, 2016

May 24, 2016

27

Order Referring Motion re: 26 Amended MOTION to Quash Motion(s) referred to Magistrate Judge Clinton E Averitte. (Ordered by Senior Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 5/25/2016) (daa) (Entered: 05/25/2016)

May 25, 2016

May 25, 2016

28

Joint STATUS REPORT on Settlement Discussions filed by Janet Cato, Larissa Coil, Loneta Jackson, Rachel McKee, Joshua Moore, Hilario Nayola. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B, # 3 Exhibit(s) C) (Hoffman, Chris) (Entered: 05/31/2016)

May 31, 2016

May 31, 2016

29

ORDER: Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Brief in Support, filed April l3, 2016. Defendant shall file a Response and Brief in Support within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. (Ordered by Senior Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 6/1/2016) (awc) (Entered: 06/01/2016)

June 1, 2016

June 1, 2016

30

Unopposed MOTION for Protective Order filed by City of Amarillo, Texas with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (McWilliams, Bryan) (Entered: 06/02/2016)

June 2, 2016

June 2, 2016

31

ORDER TO CONFER AND ORDER TO RESPOND: Lead counsel for the parties are ordered to meaningfully confer to attempt to resolve this matter. If the parties are unable to resolve the matter by agreement, plaintiffs shall file their response to the motion on or before June 10, 2016. If the parties resolve this matter, then a joint report shall be filed. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Clinton E Averitte on 6/3/2016) (epm) (Entered: 06/03/2016)

June 3, 2016

June 3, 2016

32

RESPONSE filed by Janet Cato, Larissa Coil, Loneta Jackson, Rachel McKee, Joshua Moore, Hilario Nayola re: 26 Amended MOTION to Quash (Hoffman, Chris) (Entered: 06/08/2016)

June 8, 2016

June 8, 2016

33

Joint MOTION to Extend Time to Provide Rule 26(A)(2) Disclosures and to Complete Discovery filed by Janet Cato, Larissa Coil, Loneta Jackson, Rachel McKee, Joshua Moore, Hilario Nayola (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order on Joint Motion to Extend Time) (Hoffman, Chris) (Entered: 06/09/2016)

June 9, 2016

June 9, 2016

35

REPLY filed by City of Amarillo, Texas re: 26 Amended MOTION to Quash (McWilliams, Bryan) (Entered: 06/13/2016)

June 13, 2016

June 13, 2016

36

ORDER SETTING HEARING: Motion Hearing set for 6/16/2016 01:30 PM in US Courthouse, Courtroom 1st Floor, 205 E. 5th St. Amarillo, TX 79101−1559 before Magistrate Judge Clinton E Averitte. re: 30 Unopposed MOTION for Protective Order , 26 Amended MOTION to Quash , 32 Response (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Clinton E Averitte on 6/14/2016) (daa) (Entered: 06/14/2016)

June 14, 2016

June 14, 2016

37

MOTION for Hearing to Reschedule Hearing on Pending Motions filed by City of Amarillo, Texas (McKamie, William) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

June 15, 2016

June 15, 2016

38

ORDER CORRECTING ORDER SETTING HEARING: On June 15, 2016, the Court entered an Order Setting Hearing. The order stated that the Unopposed Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 30) would be considered, in addition to the Motion to Quash (Doc. No. 26) and Response (Doc. No. 32). The Unopposed Motion for Protective Order has not been referred to the undersigned and will not be considered at the hearing. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Clinton E Averitte on 6/15/2016) (daa) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

June 15, 2016

June 15, 2016

39

ORDER RESETTING HEARING: Motion Hearing reset for 6/20/2016 01:30 PM in US Courthouse, Courtroom 1st Floor, 205 E. 5th St. Amarillo, TX 79101−1559 before Magistrate Judge Clinton E Averitte. re: 26 Amended MOTION to Quash , 32 Response. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Clinton E Averitte on 6/15/2016) (daa) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

June 15, 2016

June 15, 2016

40

RESPONSE filed by City of Amarillo, Texas re: 21 MOTION to Certify Class (McWilliams, Bryan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

June 15, 2016

June 15, 2016

41

ORDER granting 30 Unopposed MOTION for Protective Order filed by City of Amarillo, Texas. (Ordered by Senior Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 6/17/2016) (daa) (Entered: 06/17/2016)

June 17, 2016

June 17, 2016

42

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Clinton E Averitte: Motion Hearing held on 6/20/2016 re 26 Amended Motion to Quash filed by City of Amarillo, Texas. Attorney Appearances: Plaintiff − Chris G. Hoffman, Jeff Blackburn; Defense − William M. McKamie. (Court Reporter: Digital File) (No exhibits) Time in Court − :38. (egb) (Entered: 06/20/2016)

June 20, 2016

June 20, 2016

43

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PROTECTION, re: 26 Amended Motion to Quash the Oral Depositions. After considering the pleadings and arguments of counsel, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Protection to the extent that the June 22, 2016 oral depositions of Mayor Harpole and Councilmember Burkett are vacated and shall not be taken without leave of the Court. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Clinton E Averitte on 6/20/2016) (daa) (Entered: 06/20/2016)

June 20, 2016

June 20, 2016

44

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to 40 Response/Objection filed by Janet Cato, Larissa Coil, Loneta Jackson, Rachel McKee, Joshua Moore, Hilario Nayola (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Extending Time to Reply) (Hoffman, Chris) (Entered: 06/21/2016)

June 21, 2016

June 21, 2016

45

ORDER granting 44 Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to Reply to Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class. Plaintiffs shall file a Reply to Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class on or before July 8, 2016. (Ordered by Senior Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 6/23/2016) (daa) (Entered: 06/23/2016)

June 23, 2016

June 23, 2016

46

RESPONSE filed by City of Amarillo, Texas re: 21 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit(s), # 3 Exhibit(s), # 4 Cover Sheet, # 5 Exhibit(s), # 6 Exhibit(s), # 7 Exhibit(s), # 8 Exhibit(s), # 9 Cover Sheet, # 10 Exhibit(s), # 11 Cover Sheet, # 12 Exhibit(s), # 13 Cover Sheet, # 14 Exhibit(s), # 15 Cover Sheet, # 16 Exhibit(s), # 17 Exhibit(s)) (McKamie, William) (Entered: 07/07/2016)

July 7, 2016

July 7, 2016

47

REPLY filed by Janet Cato, Larissa Coil, Loneta Jackson, Rachel McKee, Joshua Moore, Hilario Nayola re: 21 MOTION to Certify Class (Hoffman, Chris) (Entered: 07/08/2016)

July 8, 2016

July 8, 2016

48

Appendix in Support filed by Janet Cato, Larissa Coil, Loneta Jackson, Rachel McKee, Joshua Moore, Hilario Nayola re 47 Reply to Response to 21 Motion to Certify Class (Hoffman, Chris) (Entered: 07/08/2016)

July 8, 2016

July 8, 2016

49

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Granting Defendant's 12 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim as to all of Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims. (Ordered by Senior Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 8/8/2016) (chmb) (Entered: 08/08/2016)

Aug. 8, 2016

Aug. 8, 2016

50

ORDER DENYING Plaintiffs' 21 Motion for Class Certification as MOOT. (Ordered by Senior Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 8/8/2016) (chmb) (Entered: 08/08/2016)

Aug. 8, 2016

Aug. 8, 2016

51

FINAL JUDGMENT −− The Court having granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, it is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiffs take nothing on any and all claims and causes of action asserted in this lawsuit against Defendant, andit is FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendant is entitled to their reasonable and necessary costs in this action. (Ordered by Senior Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 8/8/2016) (awc) (Entered: 08/08/2016)

Aug. 8, 2016

Aug. 8, 2016

52

BILL OF COSTS by City of Amarillo, Texas. (McWilliams, Bryan) (Entered: 08/18/2016)

Aug. 18, 2016

Aug. 18, 2016

53

OBJECTION filed by Janet Cato, Larissa Coil, Loneta Jackson, Rachel McKee, Joshua Moore, Hilario Nayola re: 52 Bill of Costs (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit(s) of Verification) (Hoffman, Chris) (Entered: 08/30/2016)

Aug. 30, 2016

Aug. 30, 2016

54

Appendix in Support filed by Janet Cato, Larissa Coil, Loneta Jackson, Rachel McKee, Joshua Moore, Hilario Nayola re 53 Response/Objection to Defendant's Bill of Costs (Hoffman, Chris) (Entered: 08/30/2016)

Aug. 30, 2016

Aug. 30, 2016

55

ORDER: Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendant's Bill of Costs, filed August 30, 2016. Defendant shall file a Response and Brief in Support within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. If Defendant fails to timely respond, the Court will sustain Plaintiffs' Objection and costs will be adjusted accordingly. (Ordered by Senior Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 9/23/2016) (vls) Modified typos on 9/26/2016 (awc). (Entered: 09/23/2016)

Sept. 23, 2016

Sept. 23, 2016

56

RESPONSE filed by City of Amarillo, Texas re: 53 Response/Objection (McWilliams, Bryan) (Entered: 10/07/2016)

Oct. 7, 2016

Oct. 7, 2016

57

ORDER, re: 53 Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendant's Bill of Costs. Costs taxed at $3,660. (Ordered by Senior Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 10/12/2016) (daa) Modified text on 12/14/2016 (daa). (Entered: 10/12/2016)

Oct. 12, 2016

Oct. 12, 2016

Case Details

State / Territory: Texas

Case Type(s):

Criminal Justice (Other)

Special Collection(s):

Fines/Fees/Bail Reform (Criminalization of Poverty)

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Jan. 14, 2016

Closing Date: 2016

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Indigent individuals who previously served imprisonment terms at Randall County Jail for inability to pay their traffic fines and fees.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Mooted before ruling

Defendants

City of Amarillo (Amarillo, Potter), City

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

General:

Fines/Fees/Bail/Bond

Poverty/homelessness