University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Powell v. City of St. Ann CJ-MO-0008
Docket / Court 4:15-cv-00840 ( E.D. Mo. )
State/Territory Missouri
Case Type(s) Criminal Justice (Other)
Special Collection Fines/Fees/Bail Reform (Criminalization of poverty)
Attorney Organization ArchCity Defenders
Equal Justice Under Law
Case Summary
On May 27, 2015, this lawsuit was brought in the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri by a person arrested by the City of St. Ann (the City), Missouri, who was jailed for a prolonged period after he was unable to pay the fee demanded for his release under the city’s “secured bail� ... read more >
On May 27, 2015, this lawsuit was brought in the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri by a person arrested by the City of St. Ann (the City), Missouri, who was jailed for a prolonged period after he was unable to pay the fee demanded for his release under the city’s “secured bail” policy. Under that policy, persons arrested for ordinance violations were required to post a bail from $150-350 or spend upwards of 3 days in jail, without any consideration of the person’s ability to pay. Plaintiff argued that the City’s policy violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Represented by public interest legal groups ArchCity Defenders and Equal Justice Under Law, plaintiff brought suit in the U.S. federal Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Plaintiff asked the court for class certification to represent other similarly situated individuals, for a declaration that the City had violated the Constitutional Rights of arrestees who were unable to pay the City’s secured bail, for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring the City to stop jailing arrestees for their inability to pay the City’s secured bail, for damages to the named plaintiff to compensate for his period of confinement, and for legal costs and attorneys’ fees.

That same day, plaintiffs moved for class certification for the following proposed class: "all arrestees unable to pay for their release pursuant to St. Ann's fixed bail schedule who are or will become in the custody of St. Ann."

The next day, the parties asked the judge assigned to the case, District Judge Rodney W. Sippel, to grant them a stay in proceedings so that they could conduct settlement negotiations. To that end, plaintiffs dropped their request for preliminary injunctive relief pending the outcome of the negotiations. The day after that, on May 29, 2015, Judge Sippel granted a stay, and asked the parties to report the outcome of the negotiations to him by August 3, 2015.

On September 2, 2015, Judge Sippel asked the parties, who had failed to meet his August 3 deadline, to show cause for why he shouldn’t have their case dismissed with prejudice or issue them sanctions. That same day, the parties issued a joint motion showing the judge their provisional settlement agreement, and explaining that they wanted to see how the changes that the agreement required in the City’s policies worked over the coming year. The next day, Judge Sippel agreed to give the parties twelve months to test the effects of the policy changes, and ordered the defendants to comply with the provisional settlement agreement during that period.

Under the provisional settlement agreement, the plaintiffs agreed to drop most of their non-equitable claims (the claims for monetary damages). The defendants agreed to meet most of plaintiff’s demands for injunctive relief, and to give the named plaintiff a $10,000 fee for acting as a class representative. Defendants agreed to stop requiring arrestees to post a secured bail for release. Instead, they agreed to release arrestees if they agreed to provide an unsecured bond (a bond which requires persons to pay the court only if they fail to adhere to the conditions of their bail) or a recognizance (an alternative set of conditions for preventing persons from violating the terms of their bail to the payment of a monetary fee), except for cases in which the arrestee is a threat and detention is required to protect the community. Defendants also agreed to improve their procedures for notifying arrestees of court dates, and to release persons arrested for failure to attend court dates on unsecured bonds.

The parties agreed that the plaintiff and their counsel would notify defendants of any perceived breach in the agreement, and that the plaintiff and their counsel reserved the right to pursue judgment against defendants if they failed to remedy the breach. The parties also reserved the right to seek modification of the agreement, and if they fail to reach an agreement on modification, to terminate the agreement and resume litigation.

On June 5, 2017, Judge Sippel ordered the parties to show cause for why their respective cases should not be dismissed. He noted that both parties had failed to file official settlement documents by the required date he had set. Both parties responded, and a status conference was set.

A consent judgment was filed by the defendant and signed on May 4, 2018 by Judge Sippel. In the consent judgement, the defendant specifically agreed to (1) not utilize secured money bail for persons in the custody of the Defendant on arrest; (2) offer any arrested person release from the custody of the Defendant on recognizance or on an unsecured bond as soon as practicable after booking (with the only exception are persons charged with assault, or if release would pose a danger to the community); (3) notify all arrestees in writing upon release from custody when and where they are required to appear in court; (4) specific procedures in relation to traffic stops; (5) mail a notice of a motion for bond forfeiture, should the released person fail to appear in court; and (6) to take appropriate and lawful steps to convert any unsecured bond into a money judgment at any time after non-appearance.

The Court retained jurisdiction over the consent judgement for two years starting from May 4, 2018. Subsequent to the dissolution of the consent judgment, the defendant agreed to continue to (1) ensure that indigent persons arrested are afforded the necessary protections under the law; and (2) comply with applicable state and federal laws pertaining to the setting of conditions upon pre-trail release from custody.

Ryan Berry - 07/12/2016
Sarah McDonald - 04/05/2018
Dawn Lui - 11/07/2018


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Equal Protection
Content of Injunction
Monitoring
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
Law-enforcement
General
Discharge & termination plans
Disparate Impact
Disparate Treatment
Placement in detention facilities
Poverty/homelessness
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Defendant(s) City of St. Ann
Plaintiff Description Named plaintiff, an arrestee imprisoned due to inability to pay preset bail amount, and class of "all arrestees unable to pay for their release pursuant to St. Ann's fixed bail schedule who are or will become in the custody of St. Ann."
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ArchCity Defenders
Equal Justice Under Law
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Moot
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Private Settlement Agreement
Order Duration 2018 - 2020
Filing Year 2015
Case Ongoing Yes
Docket(s)
4:15−cv−00840−RWS (E.D. Mo.)
CJ-MO-0008-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/21/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Class Action Complaint [ECF# 1]
CJ-MO-0008-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/27/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Provisional Settlement Agreements [ECF# 11]
CJ-MO-0008-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/02/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [dismissing non-equitable claims] [ECF# 13] (E.D. Mo.)
CJ-MO-0008-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/03/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Sippel, Rodney W. (W.D. Mo., E.D. Mo.)
CJ-MO-0008-0003 | CJ-MO-0008-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Carroll, Nathaniel R. (Missouri)
CJ-MO-0008-9000
Harvey, Thomas B. (Missouri)
CJ-MO-0008-0001 | CJ-MO-0008-0002 | CJ-MO-0008-9000
Karakatsanis, Alec (District of Columbia)
CJ-MO-0008-0001 | CJ-MO-0008-0002
Strode, Blake Alexander (Missouri)
CJ-MO-0008-9000
Voss, Michael-John (Missouri)
CJ-MO-0008-0001 | CJ-MO-0008-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Garrett, Steven W. (Missouri)
CJ-MO-0008-0002 | CJ-MO-0008-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -