COVID-19 Summary: This is a preexisting class action addressing issues in Harris County Jail with indigent felony detainees who remain detained solely because they cannot pay the amount necessary for release on secured money bail. On March 27, 2020, the plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order because they are in extreme danger of being exposed to COVID-19 while they are in jail only because they cannot pay enough to be released. The motion for a TRO was denied on April 14.
On January 21, 2019, indigent pretrial detainees in Harris County Jail filed this lawsuit in the Southern District of Texas. The plaintiff sued Harris County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel and the Civil Rights Corps sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs claimed that their 14th Amendment rights to Equal Protection and their substantive due process rights were being violated. Specifically, they alleged that the defendants were operating a system of wealth-based detention that kept them in jail simply because they could not afford to pay the bail amounts, without appropriate findings about the necessity of pretrial detention or the plaintiff's ability to pay.
The March 27, 2020 motion for a temporary restraining order discussed the plaintiff's concerns over COVID-19, namely the inability of the jail's limited services to care for the 8,000 individuals in the tight quarters of the jail if members of the population started getting sick. The plaintiffs argued that subjecting them to a heightened risk of contracting the virus, separating them from their families, interrupting medications and medical care, and taking them from their homes was not necessary to serve the government's interest in preventing flight or assuring public safety. They also argued that the pandemic had made it more difficult for them to receive constitutional protections, specifically because their court appearances were cancelled and visits with lawyers have been postponed. Ultimately, the plaintiffs sought an emergency order requiring the defendants to not to enforce existing pretrial detention orders, and asked for their request to be heard as quickly as possible to prevent further irreparable harm to the plaintiffs.
On March 29, 2020, the State of Texas, the Governor of Texas, and the Attorney General filed a motion to intervene to defend the bail procedures. They argued that the defendants in this case "do not contest" any of the plaintiffs' arguments." They noted that on March 27, the Court ordered the Attorney General--a non-party--"to respond to the plaintiffs motion" requesting a temporary restraining order. The noted that the Attorney General intended to respond, but asked that the Court grant the motion to intervene to allow full participation as a party.
The plaintiffs replied the next day. They did not oppose the intervention of the Texas Attorney General, but noted that "many of the factual claims and legal principles cited in the memorandum are not correct." Chief Judge Lee H. Rosenthal granted the State of Texas, Governor of Texas, and the Attorney General's motion to intervene.
The defendants and the Texas Attorney General responded to the plaintiffs' motion on April 1. That same day, the plaintiffs filed another motion for a temporary restraining order, this time against Governor Abbott's Executive Order GA 13. The executive order, issued in light of COVID-19, allowed pretrial detainees to be released if they paid bail regardless of any individualized proceedings or findings by a state court judge, but halted individualized determinations. The plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order prohibiting enforcement of Executive Order GA 13 to the extent that it bars such individualized bail determinations.
On April 6, the state intervenors filed their response to the temporary restraining order regarding Executive Order GA 13. They argued that plaintiffs the plaintiffs did not have standing because they had not received an injury from the executive order, and that sovereign immunity barred the court from awarding relief against them as the State Intervenors.
On April 11, the plaintiffs notified the court that a Texas district court had issued a temporary restraining order that found Executive Order GA 13 to be unconstitutional under Texas law and enjoined Executive Order GA 13 from being enforced against judges.
On April 14, Judge Rosenthal denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order. The opinion stated that the plaintiffs were likely to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim, but that they had not met their burden of showing that their release would be in the public interest. Furthermore, the county had implemented plans to identify those who were deemed safe for release, which had resulted in 372 releases as of April 13. The opinion allowed the plaintiffs to restate their claims if the county's efforts failed, or to move for class certification and motion for a preliminary injunction as to their underlying case, which could prove their entitlement to relief on a fuller record.
On May 6, the plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint, which added two named plaintiffs as well as additional details regarding Governor Abbott's Executive Order GA-13. They also filed a motion to lift the stay on the case.
Judge Rosenthal granted the motion to lift the stay on May 16, as it was no longer opposed by the defendants.
On June 26 the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, adding additional facts to the complaint regarding several judges who had moved to intervene in the case.
On July 10, the state intervenor-defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs had received the constitutionally-required bail process and thus could not adequately plead their procedural due process or equal protection claims. The County defendants also filed a motion to dismiss on July 30. The plaintiffs responded to the state intervenors' motion on August 27.
The case is still ongoing.
Caitlin Kierum - 09/27/2020
compress summary
