University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Driver v. Marion County Sheriff JC-IN-0024
Docket / Court 1:14-cv-2076 ( S.D. Ind. )
State/Territory Indiana
Case Type(s) Jail Conditions
Case Summary
On December 19, 2014, individuals who were incarcerated in the Marion County correctional system filed this class-action lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The plaintiffs sued the Marion County Sheriff and the Consolidated City of Indianapolis and Marion County ... read more >
On December 19, 2014, individuals who were incarcerated in the Marion County correctional system filed this class-action lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The plaintiffs sued the Marion County Sheriff and the Consolidated City of Indianapolis and Marion County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs sought money damages for a class of individuals who were incarcerated in the Marion County correctional system for unreasonable periods of time. The plaintiffs claimed the defendants violated their Fourth Amendment right to protection against unreasonable seizures and detentions and their Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. The plaintiffs alleged the defendants incarcerated the plaintiffs for longer than legally authorized because the plaintiffs were detained after their release was ordered and/or after the legal authority for their detention had ceased. The case was assigned to Judge Richard L. Young.

The Marion County Sheriff's Department stated to multiple individuals that the sheriff had a period of seventy-two hours after a release order to process prisoners out of jail. The plaintiffs argued that this is an unreasonable period of time. Additionally, the Sheriff had a practice of re-arresting and re-imprisoning individuals who had been released on their own recognizance or had their charges vacated or dismissed, at which point the Sheriff no longer had any legal right to detain them. The plaintiffs claimed that these procedures constituted unreasonable seizures and detentions, deprivation of liberty without due process, false imprisonment, and negligence. The plaintiffs sought the creation of a common fund from which all class members could claim compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Early in the litigation, the plaintiffs filed three separate amended complaints. The third amended complaint, filed on May 13, 2015, added three plaintiffs and factual allegations to accommodate the new plaintiffs.

Two days prior, on May 11, 2015, a non-party to this case filed a motion to transfer this case to the Indiana Supreme Court. The court denied this motion on October 14, 2015, reasoning that the moving party was not a party to this action nor could he be a member of the putative class because the class had not yet been certified. Furthermore, Judge Dinsmore noted that the court did not have the authority to transfer the case to the Indiana Supreme Court. (Two-and-half years later, on January 19, 2018, this non-party filed a notice of appeal of this decision. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal, however, noting that this pro se appellant had neither paid the $505.00 appellate fees nor filed a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis in the district court.)

On October 15, 2015, the plaintiffs moved for class certification of a general class and five subclasses. The general class consisted of "all individuals who, from December 19, 2012 to the present, were held in confinement by the Marion County Sheriff after legal authority for those detentions ceased." The five subclasses were based on the reasons the Sheriff ceased to have authority. The reasons were that the defendants were: "operating under a standard of seventy-two (72) hours to release prisoners who are ordered released" (72-hour subclass); "not accepting cash or surety bonds but instead outsourcing the payment and processing of these bonds to the Marion County Clerk" (cash subclass); "employing a computer system inadequate for the purposes intended with respect to the timely release of prisoners" (computer system subclass); "re-arresting and imprisoning individuals who are released on their own recognizance, found not guilty or acquitted, or who have had their criminal charges vacated or dismissed, and for whom the Sheriff no longer has any legal right to detain" (wrongful arrest subclass); and, "keeping inmates imprisoned who the courts have released to Community Corrections for electronic monitoring" (Community Corrections subclass).

On September 30, 2016, the district court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Judge Young granted the motion as to the wrongful arrest subclass and the Community Corrections subclass. The class was certified as:

(1) re-arresting and imprisoning individuals who are released on their own recognizance, found not guilty or acquitted, or who have had their criminal charges vacated or dismissed; and (2) keeping inmates imprisoned who the courts have released to Community Corrections for electronic monitoring.


The court denied the motion as to the 72-hour subclass, the cash subclass, and the computer system subclass. Dissatisfied with this order, the plaintiffs appealed the district court's denial as to the 72-hour and computer system subclasses. 2016 WL 5946839. Subsequently, on November 2, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to stay case proceedings pending resolution of this appeal.

On December 5, 2016, Judge Dinsmore filed a report and recommendation regarding the plaintiffs' motion to stay, recommending that the court grant the motion. Agreeing with Judge Dinsmore, Judge Young adopted the report and granted the motion.

On June 15, 2017, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion vacating the district court's decision and remanding the case. In this opinion, the appeals court found the district court's reasoning for denying the computer system subclass to be without base. Moreover, the Seventh Circuit noted that the district court erred in relying on a 48-hour presumption of reasonableness with regard to detention as a basis for denying certification of the 72-hour subclass. 859 F.3d 489. Given this opinion, the plaintiffs moved to amend the class certification order on July 10, 2017, asking the district court to certify the computer system subclass and modify its 48-hour presumption to a 6-hour presumption. In response, on September 19, 2017, arguing that the Seventh Circuit's opinion did not order the district court to certify the two subclasses, the defendants filed a motion to set a class certification hearing to resolve factual disputes.

Agreeing with the defendants, the district court granted the defendants' motion for hearing and denied the plaintiffs' motion on December 14, 2007. The hearing was originally set for February 16, 2018, but this schedule has since been vacated and the new schedule has not yet been announced. Discovery continues with a deadline of November 9, 2018. The docket was last updated on September 10, 2018. The case is ongoing.

Anna Jones - 11/09/2015
Jake Parker - 06/26/2018


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Unreasonable search and seizure
Defendant-type
Corrections
Jurisdiction-wide
General
Conditions of confinement
Fines/Fees/Bail/Bond
Over/Unlawful Detention
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Marion County Sheriff
The Consolidated City of Indianapolis and Marion County
Plaintiff Description Individuals who were incarcerated in the Marion County correctional system.
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None yet
Filing Year 2014
Case Ongoing Yes
Docket(s)
14-cv-2076 (S.D. Ind.)
JC-IN-0024-9001.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/11/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint [ECF# 1]
JC-IN-0024-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/19/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiffs' Third Amended Class Action Complaint [ECF# 38]
JC-IN-0024-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/05/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order [ECF# 52]
JC-IN-0024-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/19/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulated Protective Order [ECF# 52-1]
JC-IN-0024-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/19/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Entry on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification [ECF# 171] (2016 WL 5946839) (S.D. Ind.)
JC-IN-0024-0005.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 09/30/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Report and Recommendation [ECF# 184]
JC-IN-0024-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/05/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Final Judgment [Ct. of App. ECF# 00713028274] (859 F.3d 489)
JC-IN-0024-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 07/10/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Dinsmore, Mark. J. (S.D. Ind.) [Magistrate]
JC-IN-0024-0006 | JC-IN-0024-9001
Young, Richard L. (S.D. Ind.)
JC-IN-0024-0005 | JC-IN-0024-9001
Plaintiff's Lawyers Boldt, Matthew C. (Indiana)
JC-IN-0024-0004
Waples, Richard A. (Indiana)
JC-IN-0024-0001 | JC-IN-0024-0002 | JC-IN-0024-0004 | JC-IN-0024-9001
Young, John P. (Indiana)
JC-IN-0024-0001 | JC-IN-0024-0002 | JC-IN-0024-0004 | JC-IN-0024-9001
Defendant's Lawyers Dinges, Amanda J. (Indiana)
JC-IN-0024-0004
Overholt, Anthony W. (Indiana)
JC-IN-0024-0003 | JC-IN-0024-0004 | JC-IN-0024-9001
Other Lawyers McDermott, Richard G. (Indiana)
JC-IN-0024-9001

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -