Case: Schultz v. Alabama

5:17-cv-00270 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

Filed Date: Feb. 21, 2017

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a federal class-action lawsuit challenging Alabama’s bail system, specifically the fact that indigent defendants are routinely jailed pre-trial due to their inability to afford a predetermined bail bond required for release, which the plaintiffs allege deprives indigent defendants of their right to due process, equal protection and pre-trial liberty. The ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Civil Rights Corps joined in the suit seeking to end the allegedly unlawful detention …

On February 21, 2017, four named plaintiffs filed a proposed class-action lawsuit representing indigent and incarcerated individuals at the Cullman County Detention Center in the Northern District of Alabama against the State of Alabama. The plaintiffs alleged that they are being detained solely because of their indigence and, if they were not impoverished and were able to post cash bail, they would not be incarcerated awaiting their trial. In sum, the plaintiffs argued that cash bail is unconstitutionally excessive when imposed on indigent defendants. On April 18, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding additional defendants in their individual capacity as well as their official capacity. The complaint also named all predecessors and successors for these individuals.

The complaint took issue with Alabama’s bail schedule and bail statute, set forth in 15-13-111 of the Alabama Code and Rule 7 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, which the plaintiffs alleged are routinely applied to indigent defendants in an unconstitutional manner. Appellate courts in Alabama have held that cash bail is a permissible form of bail for pretrial detention and that the Constitution of Alabama does not prohibit cash bail post-conviction.

Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that the State of Alabama imposed excessive bail in the form of cash bail, which kept indigent defendants incarcerated in pre-trial detention awaiting a hearing, as well as post-conviction proceedings enforcing payments of court costs and fines. The plaintiffs alleged that Alabama routinely sets cash bail for defendants charged with non-capital crimes, who failed to appear for court appearances, or who were arrested on failure to pay court costs and fines after conviction. The complaint further alleged that this bail process violated the defendants’ constitutional protection against excessive bail and constitutional right to Due Process of Law. The complaint proceeded under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and the Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The complaint sought certification as a class action for any criminal defendants affected by pretrial detention due to failure to post cash only bail. The complaint requested declaratory relief and injunctive relief to permanently enjoin the State of Alabama from imposing cash only bail and declare that the courts in Alabama are in violation of the Constitution of the United States when imposing cash-only bail for indigent defendants and when imposing bail in minor misdemeanor prosecutions.

The case proceeded before Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala. On June 5, 2017, the plaintiffs filed for a temporary restraining order, though the court denied the request on June 8, 2017. The case proceeded through discovery.

On June 15, 2017, six additional individual plaintiffs filed an amended intervenor complaint. This complaint also added a number of defendants, including three judges, two magistrates, the Circuit Clerk of Cullman County, four Sheriffs of the Cullman County Sherriff’s Office, three county commissioners, the Alabama Administrative Office of the Court, and the Director of the Alabama Administrative Office of the Court.

This amended intervenor complaint alleged that the defendants set and enforced bail at $1,000,000 in all first-degree drug trafficking/manufacturing cases without any regard to the financial ability of the accused, allegedly in order to assure that the accused remain in jail. This practice was in line with the policy of the Alabama Administrative Offices of the Court, which directed all state magistrates to set bail within the “Bail Schedule” without regard to the financial status and ability of the accused or whether the bail, as set, ensured the appearance of the accused for hearing or trial. Further, it was alleged that the Alabama Administrative Offices of the Court failed to properly train, oversee, and supervise the courts and court officials with respect to bail policies. Ultimately, on July 17, 2017, the Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismissed four of the named plaintiffs and four of the named defendants.

On March 9, 2018, plaintiff Bradley Hester filed an intervenor complaint. The plaintiff, Hester, was represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Alabama, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Civil Rights Corps. The intervenor complaint alleged that the money bail practices in Cullman County and Alabama generally detained people based on their wealth rather than on their suitability for release. In addition to claims based on an allegedly unconstitutional bail schedule, the complaint also alleged that the court magistrates and judges did not review the predetermined financial conditions of release for weeks or months, leaving individuals who could not afford the predetermined bail amount detained for weeks or months without any opportunity for an individualized release hearing. This detention occurred for many defendants before they had been convicted of a crime. The plaintiffs argued that non-financial conditions of release alone or in combination with unsecured money bail would be as effective or more effective than secured money bail. This intervenor complaint sought declaratory relief and injunctive relief, specifically, an injunction against the Sheriff from prospectively jailing arrestees unable to pay secured monetary bail without an individualized hearing with adequate procedural safeguards.

On March 27, 2018, the court terminated 11 plaintiffs. Six named plaintiffs and intervenor plaintiffs, all defendants in the Cullman County Court System, remained in the suit against the State of Alabama and a number of individuals, including the Cullman County Sherriff, one Magistrate judge, two District Court Judges, the Circuit Clerk of Cullman County, the Cullman County Commission and three individual commissioners, the Alabama Administrative Office of the Court, two Magistrates, and the Director of the Alabama Administrative Office of the Court.

On September 4, 2018, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, enjoining the Cullman County Sheriff from detaining indigent defendants who cannot afford to post a property bond or a surety bond as a condition of pretrial release. The following day, the court denied the Sherriff’s motion to dismiss, originally filed on March 28, 2018. The following week, on September 13, 2018, the defendants filed a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, appealing the judgment on the preliminary injunction and the order dismissing the Sheriff’s motion to dismiss. The court did not stay the preliminary injunction pending resolution of the appeal. As of November 2020, the appeal on the preliminary injunction remains ongoing. Oral argument is scheduled for December 16, 2020. The district court case also remains ongoing.

	Document
5:17-cv-00270	Docket [PACER] Schultz v. State of Alabama	Sept. 15, 2020	Sept. 15, 2020 Docket
5:17-cv-00270 0:18-13894 0:18-13898	General Docket Hester v. Gentry U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit	Oct. 20, 2020	Oct. 20, 2020 Docket
1 5:17-cv-00270	Complaint Schultz v. State of Alabama	Feb. 21, 2017	Feb. 21, 2017 Complaint
14 5:17-cv-00270	Amended Complaint Schultz v. State of Alabama	April 18, 2017	April 18, 2017 Complaint
52 5:17-cv-00270	Amended Complaint Parris v. Williams	June 15, 2017	June 15, 2017 Complaint
95 5:17-cv-00270	Intervenor Complaint Hester v. Gentry	March 9, 2018	March 9, 2018 Complaint
159 5:17-cv-00270	Memorandum Opinion and Order Schultz v. State of Alabama	Sept. 4, 2018	Sept. 4, 2018 Order/Opinion 330 F.Supp.3d 1344
161 5:17-cv-00270	Order Schultz v. State of Alabama	Sept. 5, 2018	Sept. 5, 2018 Order/Opinion 2018 WL 4253645
173 5:17-cv-00270	Intervenor-Plaintiff Hester's Amended Complaint Schultz v. State of Alabama	Sept. 14, 2018	Sept. 14, 2018 Complaint
197 5:17-cv-00270	Order Clarifying Preliminary Injunction Schultz v. State of Alabama	Nov. 1, 2018	Nov. 1, 2018 Order/Opinion

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
DOJ Dear Colleague Letter to Courts Regarding Fines and Fees for Youth and Adults U.S. Department of Justice	The DOJ issued a Dear Colleague letter for state and local courts and juvenile justice agencies regarding the imposition and enforcement of fines and fees for adults and youth. The letter highlights …	April 20, 2023	April 20, 2023 https://www.justice.gov/...
Cullman County, AL: Bail Civil Rights Corps	In August 2017, Civil Rights Corps moved to intervene in a federal class action lawsuit against officials in Cullman County, Alabama who operate an unconstitutional bail system. CRC and our partners …	March 6, 2019	March 6, 2019 http://www.civilrightscorps.org/...

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT against State of Alabama filed by Ray Charles Schultz, Davon Treshawn Beebe, James Hugo Sterling, and Tyrone Daishawn Beebe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1-5, # 2 Exhibits 6-10, # 3 Exhibits 11-12, # 4 Exhibits 13-15, # 5 Exhibits 16-20, # 6 Exhibits 21-25, # 7 Exhibits 26-30)(SPT ) (Entered: 02/21/2017) 1 Exhibits 1-5 View on PACER 2 Exhibits 6-10 View on PACER 3 Exhibits 11-12 View on PACER 4 Exhibits 13-15 View on PACER 5 Exhibits 16-20 View on PACER 6 Exhibits 21-25 View on PACER 7 Exhibits 26-30 View on PACER	Feb. 21, 2017	Feb. 21, 2017 RECAP
2	MOTION (Application) for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Tyrone Daishawn Beebe. (SPT ) (Entered: 02/21/2017)	Feb. 21, 2017	Feb. 21, 2017 PACER
3	MOTION (Application) for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by James Hugo Sterling. (SPT ) (Entered: 02/21/2017)	Feb. 21, 2017	Feb. 21, 2017 PACER
4	MOTION (Application) for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Ray Charles Schultz. (SPT ) (Entered: 02/21/2017)	Feb. 21, 2017	Feb. 21, 2017 PACER
5	MOTION (Application) for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Davon Treshawn Beebe. (SPT ) (Entered: 02/21/2017)	Feb. 21, 2017	Feb. 21, 2017 PACER
6	ORDER granting [2,3,4,5] Motions for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Harwell G Davis, III on 2/23/17. (SPT ) (Entered: 02/23/2017)	Feb. 23, 2017	Feb. 23, 2017 PACER
7	Summons Issued as to State of Alabama by Clerk and delivered to US Marshal (Birmingham) for service. (SPT ) (Entered: 02/24/2017)	Feb. 24, 2017	Feb. 24, 2017 PACER
8	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Davon Treshawn Beebe. State of Alabama served on 3/27/2017, answer due 4/17/2017. (SPT ) (Entered: 03/28/2017)	March 27, 2017	March 27, 2017 PACER
9	MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by State of Alabama. (Davis, James) (Entered: 04/03/2017)	April 3, 2017	April 3, 2017 RECAP
10	ORDER that the Plaintiffs shall file a response to 9 MOTION to Dismiss within 14 days from the date of entry of this order; Defendant shall file any reply within 7 days thereafter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Harwell G Davis, III on 04/04/17. (SPT ) (Entered: 04/04/2017)	April 4, 2017	April 4, 2017 PACER
11	ORDER that the parties are hereby notified that, unless they unanimously consent to the exercise of dispositive jurisdiction by a magistrate judge by no later than May 18, 2017, the case will be reassigned to a randomly-drawn district judge for all purposes. Signed by Magistrate Judge Harwell G Davis, III on 04/04/17. (SPT ) (Entered: 04/04/2017)	April 4, 2017	April 4, 2017 PACER
12	RESPONSE in Opposition re 9 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Davon Treshawn Beebe, Tyrone Daishawn Beebe, Ray Charles Schultz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit exhibit 1-5, # 2 Exhibit exhibit 6-10, # 3 Exhibit exhibit 11-15, # 4 Exhibit exhibit 13-15, # 5 Exhibit exhibit 16-20, # 6 Exhibit exhibit 21-25, # 7 Exhibit 26-30, # 8 Exhibit exhibit 31)(Hasting, J) (Entered: 04/18/2017)	April 18, 2017	April 18, 2017 PACER
13	RESPONSE in Opposition re 9 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Davon Treshawn Beebe, Tyrone Daishawn Beebe, Ray Charles Schultz. (Hasting, J) (Entered: 04/18/2017)	April 18, 2017	April 18, 2017 PACER
14	AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Ray Charles Schultz, Davon Treshawn Beebe, James Hugo Sterling, Tyrone Daishawn Beebe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-5, # 2 Exhibit 6-10, # 3 Exhibit 11-12, # 4 Exhibit 13-15, # 5 Exhibit 16-20, # 6 Exhibit 21-25, # 7 Exhibit 26-30, # 8 Exhibit 31)(Hasting, J) (Entered: 04/18/2017) 1 Exhibit 1-5 View on RECAP 2 Exhibit 6-10 View on RECAP 3 Exhibit 11-12 View on RECAP 4 Exhibit 13-15 View on RECAP 5 Exhibit 16-20 View on RECAP 6 Exhibit 21-25 View on RECAP 7 Exhibit 26-30 View on RECAP 8 Exhibit 31 View on RECAP	April 18, 2017	April 18, 2017 RECAP
15	TEXT ORDER finding as moot 9 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. See ComputerEase Software, Inc. v. Hemisphere Corp., 2007 WL 852103, at 1 (S.D.Ohio Mar.19, 2007) (Since the amended complaint replaces the original complaint, the motion to dismiss the original complaint is moot.... ); Scuba v. Wilkinson, 2006 WL 2794939, at 2 (S.D.Ohio Sept.27, 2006) (Since the amended complaint replaces the original complaint, the motions to dismiss the original complaint are moot. ); Weiss v. Astella Pharma US, Inc., 2006 WL 1285406, at *1 n.1 (E.D.Ky. May 10, 2006) (following amendment of complaint, motions to dismiss the original complaint were moot); Kentucky Press Assn, Inc. v. Kentucky, 355 F.Supp.2d 853, 857 (E.D.Ky. 2005) (Plaintiffs amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, thus making the motion to dismiss the original complaint moot.). Signed by Magistrate Judge Harwell G Davis, III on 4/19/17. (LBG, ) (Entered: 04/19/2017)	April 19, 2017	April 19, 2017 PACER
16	MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint by State of Alabama. (Davis, James) (Entered: 05/02/2017)	May 2, 2017	May 2, 2017 RECAP
17	ORDER that Plaintiffs shall file a response to the 16 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint within 14 days from the date of entry of this order; Defendant shall file any reply within 7 days thereafter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Harwell G Davis, III on 05/02/17. (SPT ) (Entered: 05/02/2017)	May 2, 2017	May 2, 2017 PACER
18	RESPONSE to Motion re 16 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by Davon Treshawn Beebe, Tyrone Daishawn Beebe. (Hasting, J) (Entered: 05/16/2017)	May 16, 2017	May 16, 2017 PACER
19	NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT: The parties having not unanimously consented to the dispositive jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge, the above styled civil action has been randomly reassigned to the Honorable Madeline Hughes Haikala. Please use case number 5:17-CV-270-MHH on all subsequent pleadings(AHI) (Entered: 05/19/2017)	May 19, 2017	May 19, 2017 PACER
20	INITIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 5/30/2017. (KEK) (Entered: 05/30/2017)	May 30, 2017	May 30, 2017 PACER
21	MOTION to Amend/Correct by Ray Charles Schultz. (Hasting, J) (Entered: 06/02/2017)	June 2, 2017	June 2, 2017 PACER
22	TEXT ORDER: The Court GRANTS plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Deadlines. (Doc. 21 ). Plaintiffs shall file their motion for a preliminary injunction on June 5, 2017. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 6/5/2016. (YMB) (Entered: 06/05/2017)	June 5, 2017	June 5, 2017 PACER
23	MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Ray Charles Schultz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Cooper v. City of Dothan, # 2 Exhibit State of Alabama v. Blake, # 3 Exhibit Statement of Interest Dept of Justice Varden V. City of Clanton)(Hasting, J) (Entered: 06/05/2017)	June 5, 2017	June 5, 2017 PACER
24	ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 23 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order : Motion Hearing set for 6/8/2017 11:00 AM in Hugo L Black US Courthouse, Birmingham, AL before Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 6/6/2017. (KMG) (Entered: 06/06/2017)	June 6, 2017	June 6, 2017 PACER
25	ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE Executed as to 12 Response in Opposition to Motion, Acknowledgement filed by Ray Charles Schultz. (Hasting, J) (Entered: 06/07/2017)	June 7, 2017	June 7, 2017 PACER
26	First MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum by Ray Charles Schultz. (Hasting, J) (Entered: 06/07/2017)	June 7, 2017	June 7, 2017 PACER
27	Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum Issued as to Ray Charles Schultz for 6/8/2017. (KEK) (Entered: 06/07/2017)	June 7, 2017	June 7, 2017 PACER
28	ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE Executed Sheriff Matt Gentry Acknowledgement filed by Ray Charles Schultz. (Hasting, J) (Entered: 06/07/2017)	June 7, 2017	June 7, 2017 PACER
29	MOTION to Dismiss by Randy Helms, Steven Marshall, Barry Matson. (Howell, Laura) (Entered: 06/07/2017)	June 7, 2017	June 7, 2017 RECAP
30	RESPONSE in Opposition re 23 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Randy Helms, Steven Marshall, Barry Matson, State of Alabama. (Howell, Laura) (Entered: 06/07/2017)	June 7, 2017	June 7, 2017 PACER
31	MOTION to Intervene by Randall Lee Parris. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Drake, Thomas) (Entered: 06/07/2017)	June 7, 2017	June 7, 2017 PACER
32	NOTICE of Appearance by Jamie Helen Kidd on behalf of Matthew Gentry (Kidd, Jamie) (Entered: 06/07/2017)	June 7, 2017	June 7, 2017 PACER
33	MOTION to Dismiss by Matthew Gentry. (Kidd, Jamie) (Entered: 06/07/2017)	June 7, 2017	June 7, 2017 PACER
	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala: Motion Hearing held on 6/8/2017 re 23 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Ray Charles Schultz. Written order to follow. (Court Reporter Julie Martin.) (YMB)	June 8, 2017	June 8, 2017 PACER
	Motion Hearing	June 8, 2017	June 8, 2017 PACER
34	ORDER granting 16 Motion to Dismiss. Consistent with the remarks made on the record during the June 8, 2017 hearing in this matter, the Court dismisses the plaintiffs' claims against the State of Alabama without prejudice. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on June 8, 2017. (Haikala, Madeline) (Entered: 06/08/2017)	June 8, 2017	June 8, 2017 PACER
35	ORDER denying 23 Motion for TRO. Consistent with the remarks made during the June 8, 2017 hearing in this matter, on the record currently before the Court, the Court denies the plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on June 8, 2017. (Haikala, Madeline) (Entered: 06/08/2017)	June 8, 2017	June 8, 2017 PACER
36	ORDER granting 29 Motion to Dismiss. Consistent with the remarks made on the record during the June 8, 2017 hearing in this matter, the Court dismisses the plaintiffs' claims against defendants Marshall, Helms, and Matson without prejudice. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on June 8, 2017. (Haikala, Madeline) (Entered: 06/08/2017)	June 8, 2017	June 8, 2017 PACER
37	ORDER granting 31 Motion to Intervene. Consistent with the remarks made on the record during the June 8, 2017 hearing in this matter, the Court grants Mr. Parris's motion to intervene. Mr. Parris shall file his class action complaint on or before June 12, 2017. Mr. Parris shall obtain waivers of service from the defendants or shall serve his class action complaint on the defendants named in the complaint, and Mr. Parris shall serve the Court's initial order (Doc. 20) on the defendants named in the class action complaint. (See Doc. 20, p. 2). Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on June 8, 2017. (Haikala, Madeline) (Entered: 06/08/2017)	June 8, 2017	June 8, 2017 PACER
38	ORDER denying 33 Motion to Dismiss. Consistent with the remarks made on the record during the June 8, 2017 hearing in this matter, the Court denies Sheriff Gentry's motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on June 8, 2017. (Haikala, Madeline) (Entered: 06/08/2017)	June 8, 2017	June 8, 2017 PACER

Case: Schultz v. Alabama

5:17-cv-00270 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details