On June 16, 2015, a recent arrestee in Dothan, Alabama, filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. Represented by attorneys from Equal Justice Under Law, the plaintiff sued the city of Dothan. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Declaratory Judgment Act, alleging that Dothan had instituted a money-based detention scheme, where individuals who were arrested for minor traffic offenses and misdemeanors were released from custody almost immediately upon payment of a generically set bail amount. However, individuals who were too poor to pay this amount remained imprisoned for up to seven days while they awaited their docket to be called. Dothan did not allow for unsecured bonds, where an individual is released by promising to pay the amount if the person later does not appear. Furthermore, Dothan held the hearings for these imprisoned individuals in an empty courtroom that was closed to the public; the individuals appeared via video while still in jail. The plaintiff claimed that, as a result, Dothan had violated the Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection of the plaintiff (and those similarly situated) by jailing him because he could afford to pay the generic bail amount. The plaintiff requested injunctive and declaratory relief, compensation for the damages suffered as a result of Dothan's conduct, and attorneys' fees.

With the complaint, the plaintiff also filed a motion for class certification and a temporary restraining order (TRO) to grant the plaintiff's release and halt Dothan's policies. On June 18, 2015, Chief Judge William Keith Watkins granted in part the plaintiff's motion for a TRO, ordering the plaintiff's release, but denied all other respects of the motion. Judge Watkins also set a hearing to determine whether to convert the TRO to a preliminary injunction.

However, on June 25, 2015, Dothan moved to deny the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction as moot because Dothan had begun allowing unsecured bonds for release from prison for minor traffic offenses and misdemeanors. Dothan noted that the plaintiff had conceded that this bail system cured any constitutional problems. Judge Watkins subsequently issued an order on June 26, 2015 requiring that Dothan and its employees, officers, and agents comply with the new bail system as outlined in Dothan's June 25 motion. Judge Watkins also dissolved the TRO as the parties pursued settlement on the remaining issues.

On April 13, 2016, the court granted the parties' joint motion for entry of a consent decree. The parties agreed that the procedures set forth in Dothan's June 25 motion satisfied the plaintiff's concerns. Per the consent decree, (1) Dothan was to comply with the aforementioned procedures for a minimum of three years, (2) Dothan was to notify the court of any intent to materially alter the procedures, (3) the plaintiff could request a preliminary injunction if it found Dothan was noncompliant, and (4) all damages claims were dismissed with prejudice.

The case is now closed, though the court retained jurisdiction over the enforcement of the consent decree.

John He - 10/16/2015
Virginia Weeks - 02/04/2018


compress summary