Case: Evenson-Childs v. Ravalli County Sheriff's Office

Plaintiff, a homeless resident of the state of Montana, filed this putative class action against Ravalli County Sheriff’s Office in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on August 9, 2021. She challenged the Office’s practice of charging pre-trial arrestees released on bail for various forms of pre-trial supervision, such as ankle monitors and breathalyzers, and of requiring pre-trial arrestees to sign a contract stating that they can be criminally charged with felony theft and criminal mischief if they do not maintain contact with their pre-trial officer or if they damage the supervision device. The plaintiff had already accrued more than $5,000 in pre-trial fees. She brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of her Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process and equal protection rights and her Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. She also brought state law claims alleging violation of equal protection and social condition discrimination, false imprisonment, and coercive contracts in violation of due process. Plaintiff, represented by Equal Justice Under Law and Upper Seven Law, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. U.S. District Judge Dana L. Christensen was assigned.

In particular, the plaintiff alleged that the Ravalli County Sheriff’s Office’s pre-trial release program functioned to push pre-trial arrestees further into the criminal legal system and to entrap them in a cycle of debt because of non-refundable, expensive supervision fees and the threat of further criminal charges for non-compliance. Pre-trial supervision, she alleged, was imposed without consideration of necessity or ability to pay, with fees set at the discretion of the pre-trial supervision unit of the Sheriff’s Office. Although the pre-trial fees operated as an extension of bail, she argued, no procedural protections or findings of guilt governed their imposition, as required. Moreover, the fees were imposed arbitrarily, without assessment of individual risk or ability to pay, and without judicial supervision or apparent limit. Those without houses, like plaintiff, were required to wear an ankle monitoring device or pay an expensive cash deposit before they would be released from jail, which plaintiff challenged as status-based discrimination. Finally, she challenged the practice of revoking bail based on inability to pay pre-trial fees as criminalization of poverty and a violation of due process, as well as wealth-based discrimination.

The plaintiff sought to represent a class of “all persons who have been or will be: accused of a crime in Ravalli County, Montana, arrested, incarcerated, placed on pre-trial supervision, and charged pre-trial fees without ever being convicted for the crime for which supervision was ordered.” She further sought to bring the action as a representative of the following subclass: “All indigent persons who have been or will be: accused of a crime in Ravalli County, Montana, arrested, incarcerated, placed on pre-trial supervision, and charged pre-trial fees without ever being convicted for the crime for which supervision was ordered.”

The plaintiff subsequently filed two amended complaints. The second amended complaint, filed on November 16, 2021, included additional plaintiffs and four additional defendants: two justices of the peace for the Justice Court of Ravalli County and two judges for the 21st Judicial District Court. The complaint alleged that the judicial officers assigned arrestees to the pre-trial release program without assessing whether the arrestees could afford to pay the program's fees. Moreover, the complaint alleged that there was no judicial review of the program's fee requirements, and the judicial officers revoked arrestees' bail when they failed to pay the program's fees.

On November 18, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the county from charging any fees associated with the program or detaining anyone who failed to pay the fees. The motion was denied on March 21, 2023. The court determined that the injunction would "alter the status quo," and the plaintiffs had not shown that the "facts and law clearly favor" their due process or equal protection claims.

The parties filed several motions between December 2021 and April 2022. On December 16, 2021, the county defendants (i.e., the county, the Sheriff's Office, and the justices of the peace) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Two days later, the District Court judges filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. On April 8, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Magistrate Judge Kathleen L. DeSoto held a hearing on these motions on August 4, 2022.

On January 13, 2023, Judge DeSoto issued her findings and recommendations on the parties' motions. 2023 WL 2705902. First, the court found that the plaintiffs had not established Article III standing against the judicial officers. Based on the facts in the complaint, the judges were acting in adjudicatory capacity, and there was no "adversity of interest" necessary to establish standing. Second, the court noted that the claims against the Ravalli County Sheriff were duplicative of the claims against the county itself. Third, the court determined that plaintiffs adequately stated their due process and equal protection claims against the county. Fourth, Judge DeSoto recommended that the court deny the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. Fifth, the court  recommended certification only for a portion of the plaintiffs' claims, defining the class as "[a]ll indigent persons who are or will be: accused of a crime in Ravalli County, Montana, arrested, incarcerated, placed on the Jail Diversion Program, and charged pretrial fees without having been convicted for the crime for which the Jail Diversion Program was ordered." On March 21, 2023, Judge Christensen adopted these recommendations in full. See 2023 WL 2583261.

The court scheduled a final pretrial conference for May 23, 2024. On January 12, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to liability. The county filed its own motion for summary judgment on the same day. Both motions are pending.

As of March 17, 2024, the case is ongoing.