Filed Date: Sept. 2, 2021
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Arkansas was the only state in the country that provided landlords the option of a criminal eviction process when tenants failed to pay rent on time. Criminal charges could be brought against a tenant if three elements were met: (1) a landlord alleged that a tenant was behind on rent, regardless of the truth of the allegation and even if the tenant was only one day late; (2) the landlord notified the tenant in writing that they must leave their home because they were behind on rent; and (3) the tenant "willfully and unnecessarily" remained in the home more than ten days after receiving the written notice.
On September 2, 2021, the plaintiffs in this putative class action lawsuit filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas against the Prosecuting Attorney for Malvern/Hot Spring County and the Sheriff of Hot Spring County, challenging the constitutionality of the state's criminal eviction statute. The plaintiffs sought class action certification for all people in the state of Arkansas who are or will be unable to afford rent and who are being or will be at risk of prosecution under Ark. Code § 18-16- 101. The named plaintiffs in this case were served with a failure to vacate eviction notice because they cannot afford to pay rent.
The named plaintiffs, both of whom were disabled, received Social Security disability payments as their only source of income. These payments amounted to less than $1,200 per month between the two of the named plaintiffs. Additionally, due to their landlord's failure to make necessary repairs, the named plaintiffs had not had running water since August 2020. The named plaintiffs could not afford to pay rent plus the new expenses acquired to compensate for their lack of running water.
Represented by attorneys from Equal Justice Under Law and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bowen Legal Clinic, the named plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, alleged that Arkansas's law violated their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that the defendants criminalized the plaintiffs' conduct based on their indigence in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment because the criminal eviction statute allows for excessive fines for each day past the ten days after receiving written notice from the landlord. The complaint alleged that such fines were grossly disproportionate to the underlying behavior of failing to pay rent, even when that failure was non-willful, and were imposed without an ability to pay determination.
The plaintiffs also alleged that the state law violated procedural due process rights because a criminal action could be brought solely on the basis of the landlord's statement and because the law did not provide a cap on the number of criminal charges or excessive fines that might be imposed. Further, the plaintiffs argued that the law violated their due process and equal protection rights by failing to require consideration of the plaintiffs' ability to pay and because the law lacked a willfulness requirement.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment, a judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining the defendants from enforcing the state law, and attorneys' costs and fees.
The Sheriff of Hot Spring County moved to dismiss this case on November 8, 2021. In his motion, the defendant Sheriff stated that the Arkansas State Supreme Court had previously upheld the state law. Additionally, the defendant Sheriff claimed that the plaintiffs failed to meet the burden required for a facial constitutional challenge.
The Prosecuting Attorney named as a defendant in this case also filed a motion to dismiss on November 10, 2021. In the motion to dismiss, the defendant alleged both that the case was moot and that the defendant was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and sovereign immunity.
As of January 26, 2022, the case is ongoing with a trial date set for January 30, 2023.
Summary Authors
Richa Bijlani (1/26/2022)
For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60335266/parties/easley-v-howell/
Hickey, Susan Owens (Alaska)
Baker, Natasha (District of Columbia)
Pritchard, Amy Marie (Alaska)
Telfeyan, Phil (District of Columbia)
Hickey, Susan Owens (Alaska)
Baker, Natasha (District of Columbia)
Pritchard, Amy Marie (Alaska)
Telfeyan, Phil (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60335266/easley-v-howell/
Last updated March 14, 2023, 3:03 a.m.
State / Territory: Arkansas
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 2, 2021
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All people in the state of Arkansas who are or will be unable to afford rent and who are being or will be at risk of prosecution under Ark. Code § 18-16- 101.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
Hot Spring County Sheriff (Hot Spring), County
Malvern/Hot Spring County Prosecuting Attorney (Malvern, Hot Spring), County
Hot Spring County (Malvern, Hot Spring), County
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General: