Filed Date: Dec. 12, 2011
Closed Date: 2012
Clearinghouse coding complete
On December 12, 2011, two former inmates of the Warren County Jail (“Jail”) filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The plaintiffs sued Warren County (“County”) and the South Central Bank of Bowling Green (“Bank”) under 42 U.S.C §1983 and Section 10 of the Kentucky Constitution. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought injunctive and monetary relief, claiming violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs argue that the Warren County Jail had a policy of taking checks and cash from the inmates during their admission and, without their knowledge or consent, presenting the checks and cash to the Bank, which accepted them for deposit into Jail’s accounts at the Bank. The plaintiffs also alleged that the Jail retained proceeds of such checks and cash without plaintiff’s consent, and in excess of the amounts authorized by the state law (KRS 441.265) to cover the charges and fees the Jail was entitled to receive.
The plaintiffs proposed three classes:
(a) all persons incarcerated in the Jail who were not sentenced prisoners who have had checks in their possession when admitted to the Jail taken, endorsed and deposited by the County Defendants in the Jail’s account or accounts with the Bank or other financial institutions;(b) all persons incarcerated in the Jail who were not sentenced prisoners who have had the cash and checks in their possession when admitted to the Jail retained by the County Defendants without their written consent, and/or in violation of and/or in excess of sums permitted under KRS § 441.265; and
(c) all persons incarcerated in the Jail who were not sentenced prisoners who have had the cash and checks in their possession when admitted to the Jail retained by the County Defendants without giving an accounting to such persons upon release from the Jail.
The Bank moved to dismiss the complaint on January 20, 2012. It alleged the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C §1983, because (i) the Bank did not act under color of state law, and (ii) the plaintiffs' constitutional rights were not infringed. Moreover, it argued that the plaintiffs' complaint did not contain plausible violations of Kentucky Law. In the alternative, the Bank stated that the state law claims should not be examined by the court.
The County filed a motion for summary judgment on the same day. It argued that (i) part of the claims related to a 2003 incarceration of one of the plaintiffs and, thus, were barred by the statute of limitations; and (ii) the plaintiffs could not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 because the Jail policy did not violate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and there was no state law violation. Additionally, the County stated that the state law claims failed, and that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies established by Kentucky before bringing the suit.
On April 16, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, in order to (i) add a new plaintiff and class representative, (ii) specify that the Bank was a state actor and its conduct was taken under color of state law, and (iii) add a claim for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
On May 29, 2012, Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. granted the Bank’s motion to dismiss and the County’s motion for summary judgment as to the 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim. The opinion stated (i) the jail policy was not an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, provided the provision of KRS § 441.265 were followed; (ii) a 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim was not the appropriate remedy for the plaintiffs, thus their allegations concerning their Fourteenth Amendment rights should be dismissed; and (iii) the Bank was not acting under the color of state law for purposes of a §1983 claim. The opinion also denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended class action complaint, stating that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act was not applicable to the case and, therefore, the amendment was futile. Finally, Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice. The case was then closed.
Summary Authors
Daniele de Oliveira Nunes (2/9/2019)
Cole v. Warren County, Kentucky state trial court (2011)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4988376/parties/cole-v-warren-county-kentucky/
Brennenstuhl, H. Brent (Kentucky)
McKinley, Joseph H. Jr. (Kentucky)
Bathurst, Camille (Kentucky)
Belzley, Gregory A. (Kentucky)
Logsdon, Gary S. (Kentucky)
Blankenship, Stacey A. (Kentucky)
Lewis, Benjamin J. (Kentucky)
Moore, Douglas R. (Kentucky)
Riddle, Mark S. (Kentucky)
Brennenstuhl, H. Brent (Kentucky)
McKinley, Joseph H. Jr. (Kentucky)
Bathurst, Camille (Kentucky)
Belzley, Gregory A. (Kentucky)
Logsdon, Gary S. (Kentucky)
Blankenship, Stacey A. (Kentucky)
Lewis, Benjamin J. (Kentucky)
Moore, Douglas R. (Kentucky)
Riddle, Mark S. (Kentucky)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4988376/cole-v-warren-county-kentucky/
Last updated May 20, 2022, 5:06 a.m.
State / Territory: Kentucky
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 12, 2011
Closing Date: 2012
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Two former inmates of the Warren County Regional Jail
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Denied
Defendants
Warren County, Kentucky, County
South Central Bank of Bowling Green, Inc., Private Entity/Person
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Unreasonable search and seizure
Availably Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General: