Case: Coleman v. Brookside
2:22-cv-00423 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
Filed Date: April 4, 2022
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This is a class-action lawsuit challenging a small town’s practice of over-policing to generate revenue through fines and fees. On April 4, 2022, a group of individuals whom the Brookside police detained in traffic stops filed this complaint and motion for class certification in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The plaintiffs sued the Town of Brookside, Alabama, Jett's Towing, and three Brookside police officers in their individual capacities, seeking redress for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by the Institute for Justice, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as disgorgement and cancellation of the fees arising from the unconstitutional policies and costs and attorneys’ fees. The suit was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Nicholas A. Danella before being assigned to Judge Robert David Proctor on May 19, 2022.
The plaintiffs alleged that in 2018, Brookside policymakers began leveraging the police force to systematically target residents in baseless traffic stops, car searches, arrests, and unnecessary car tows for the purpose of earning vehicle “release” fees. The plaintiffs alleged that the town, which has fewer than 1,300 residents, increased its revenue by 640% over the course of two years and that it spent the revenue on a K9 unit, a SWAT tactical operations team, unmarked SUVs, a new communications center, and a new jail. The plaintiffs also alleged that annual tows from 2018 to 2020 increased from 50 to 789, and that many of the individuals targeted in these tows were also charged with offenses in Brookside Municipal Court and required to pay court fees. They claimed the town violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because its policies, practices, and customs gave it an unlawful financial interest in legal proceedings and that the police officer defendants conducted unreasonable seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment when they handcuffed the lead plaintiff and towed her car without a warrant or justification.
In their initial complaint, plaintiffs sought to certify two classes: the "Towing Class" and the "Charging Class." The former would be composed of "[a]ll persons who, since March 1, 2018, have paid fees to either the Town of Brookside or Jett’s Towing (or both) to secure the release of a vehicle towed on the orders of the Brookside Police Department following a traffic stop.” The plaintiffs sought relief in the form of a return of fines paid and vehicles held as well as injunctive relief. The Charging Class would be composed of "[a]ll persons who have been charged with offenses in Brookside Municipal Court following traffic stops by the Brookside Police Department since March 1, 2018."
Additionally, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit brought an individual claim against three members of the Brookside Police Department in their individual capacity for violations of the Fourth Amendment under §1983. The plaintiff alleged that the named police officers illegally handcuffed her after a traffic stop by fabricating a marijuana charge, in addition to illegally seizing, towing, and impounding her vehicle. The plaintiff sought compensatory damages against the individual officers.
The city and the towing company filed separate motions to dismiss on May 13, 2022. The same day, the city also filed an additional motion to dismiss on behalf of the named police officers, alleging that statutory limitations precluded the suit.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 17, 2022, adding a sub-class of individuals to the Towing Class (the "Vehicle Retention Sub-Class"). The sub-class would cover “[a]ll persons who, since June 17, 2020, have paid fees to the Town of Brookside to secure the release of a vehicle towed on the orders of the Brookside Police Department following a traffic stop.” The plaintiffs specifically alleged that the city's imposition of a mandatory $175 fee to recover one's vehicle, which was unrelated to the cost of administering the city's vehicle towing and impounding system, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment against the practice, an injunction barring the practice, and a damages award disgorging and returning the fees previously paid to the Vehicle Retention Sub-Class.
The city renewed its motion to dismiss on July 1, 2022. The towing company followed with a renewal of its motion to dismiss on July 5, 2022. The police officers all sought summary judgment in their favor on July 22, 2022, arguing that their actions were covered by qualified immunity and that they did not commit Fourth Amendment violations.
On July 26, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division filed a statement of interest in the case. In the statement, attorneys for the DOJ emphasized the federal government’s interest in preserving equality of the law and its history in correcting similar cases of over-policing for profit. The Department then argued that the city’s actions violated provisions of the 14th Amendment requiring municipal courts, prosecutors, and police officers to maintain impartiality.
Judge Proctor denied the police officers’ summary judgment motion on October 28, 2022. He found that there was sufficient evidence to dispute whether the officers were acting reasonably when detaining the plaintiffs prior to impounding their vehicle. These disputes cast uncertainty over whether or not the police officers committed constitutional violations. If they did commit Fourth Amendment violations, this would nullify officers’ qualified immunity claims. As the disputes were factual matters, Judge Proctor denied summary judgment, preferring instead to let a jury determine the issue. 637 F. Supp. 3d 1290.
Judge Proctor reassigned the case to Judge Anna M. Manasco on December 7, 2022. In an earlier administrative termination to a motion by the plaintiffs, Judge Proctor wrote that moving the case to Judge Manasco would ease procedural burdens and promote consolidation with other cases pending before Judge Manasco relating to the city’s policing procedures. Judge Manasco’s Brookside cases (Thomas v. Town of Brookside, 2:22-cv-157-AMM, Wattson v. Town of Brookside, 2:21-cv-649-AMM, Harris v. Town of Brookside, 2:21-cv-1341-AMM) were all at similar procedural stages. Judge Manasco promptly ordered the parties of all four suits to discuss consolidation. Judge Manasco also lifted a stay on discovery against the three named police officers and scheduled proceedings for the lead plaintiff's individual §1983 claim.
On March 23, 2023, Judge Manasco denied both the city's and the towing company’s motions to dismiss. She rejected arguments by the city that the incidents at issue were “as applied” challenges, writing that the actions of officials reflected a broader policy and that this policy could be challenged on its face. Judge Manasco then denied the towing company’s dismissal motion, noting that the city and the towing company had a sufficient relationship to deem the towing company’s actions as state action.
The parties then turned their attention towards the issue of consolidation. On May 12, 2023, Judge Manasco consolidated the Wattson and Thomas cases and ordered all subsequent documents to be filed in the lead case, Wattson. On July 21, 2023, Judge Manasco ordered the parties in this action and in Wattson and Thomas to meet and confer regarding coordinating pretrial proceedings and directed them to submit a joint proposed scheduling order. On September 18, 2023, Judge Manasco approved the joint scheduling order, which noted that the parties in all three cases should be ready for trial by June 2025.
Discovery on the individual claim brought by the lead plaintiff (alleging a violation of the Fourth Amendment) against the three named police officers continued through November 2023. On December 28, 2023, the lead plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on the individual count against the named officers. The motion is still pending before the District Court.
The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Laura Irei (4/16/2022)
Matthew Schoenthal (4/17/2023)
Muiz Wani (2/19/2024)
Related Cases
Wattson v. Town of Brookside, Alabama, Northern District of Alabama (2021)
Thomas v. Town of Brookside, Alabama, Northern District of Alabama (2022)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63218236/parties/coleman-v-brookside-alabama-town-ofet-al/
Clark, Victoria (Alabama)
Arnold, Hobart H (Alabama)
Brewer, Herbie (Alabama)
Attorney, Prim F. (Alabama)
Chamblee-Ryan, Katherine (Alabama)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63218236/coleman-v-brookside-alabama-town-ofet-al/
Last updated July 3, 2026, 6:57 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Fines/Fees/Bail Reform (Criminalization of Poverty)
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 4, 2022
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The "Towing Class" to be composed of "[a]ll persons who, since March 1, 2018, have paid fees to either the Town of Brookside or Jett’s Towing (or both) to secure the release of a vehicle towed on the orders of the Brookside Police Department following a traffic stop.” The "Charging Class" to be composed of "[a]ll persons who have been charged with offenses in Brookside Municipal Court following traffic stops by the Brookside Police Department since March 1, 2018." The "Vehicle Retention Sub-Class" of the "Towing Class" to be composed of “[a]ll persons who, since June 17, 2020, have paid fees to the Town of Brookside to secure the release of a vehicle towed on the orders of the Brookside Police Department following a traffic stop.”
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
City
Town of Brookside, Alabama
Town of Brookside, Alabama
Private Entity/Person
Jett's Towing, Inc.
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Unreasonable search and seizure
Other Dockets:
Northern District of Alabama 2:22-cv-00423
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Over/Unlawful Detention (facilities)
Policing:
Case Summary of Coleman v. Brookside, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/43263/ (last updated 2/19/2024).