University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Martinez v. City of Dodge City CJ-KS-0002
Docket / Court 2:15-cv-09344 ( D. Kan. )
State/Territory Kansas
Case Type(s) Criminal Justice (Other)
Special Collection Criminalization of poverty
Attorney Organization Equal Justice Under Law
Case Summary
On October 21, 2015, an arrestee filed this lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Kansas. The plaintiff sued the City of Dodge City, Kansas and Ford County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201. The plaintiff alleged that the Dodge City's wealth-based post-arrest detention ... read more >
On October 21, 2015, an arrestee filed this lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Kansas. The plaintiff sued the City of Dodge City, Kansas and Ford County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201. The plaintiff alleged that the Dodge City's wealth-based post-arrest detention scheme violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff sought declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and a declaration that the City's wealth-based detention practices are unlawful.

The plaintiff, a Native American citizen of Dodge City, was arrested and held at the Ford County Jail because he could not pay $250 to the City of Dodge City. In Dodge City, arrestees faced two different outcomes depending on their wealth status. Wealthy arrestees paid an amount set by the bail schedule and were not held in jail. Poor arrestees were put in jail for 48 hours because they could not afford to pay the City's pre-determined amount of money for their offense, which ranged from $250-$2500. Under the City's scheme, the sole criterion for determining whether a pretrial arrestee walked free or sat in jail was the amount of money that he had. Because arrestees were released after only two days, Dodge City's money bail system is not designed to ensure appearance in court. The plaintiff alleged that Dodge City's policy and practice of using a fixed "bail schedule" to determine the amount of money necessary to secure post-arrest release, and their practice of requiring cash up-front to avoid post-arrest detention violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class on behalf of himself and all other arrestees unable to pay for their release pursuant to Dodge City's fixed bail schedule who were, are, or who will become in the custody of Dodge City.

On November 25, 2015 and on February 24, 2016, the court (Judge Teresa J. James) granted motions to stay all proceedings to allow the parties to explore a non-litigation resolution.

On April 22, 2016, the parties submitted a joint motion for entry of final declaratory and injunctive relief and joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. On April 26, 2016, the court (Judge Daniel D. Crabtree) issued an order pursuant to the motion. The court issued a declaratory judgment, stating that persons cannot, consistently with the Equal Protection Clause, be held in custody after a non-warrant arrest because they are too poor to post a monetary bond. It also entered an injunction, ordering the release of individuals arrested for non-warrant arrests in Dodge City for violation of municipal ordinances on Own Recognizance Bonds without further conditions of release and without requiring posting any monetary bond. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s motion for class certification, motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and remaining claims with prejudice. The court retains jurisdiction to enforce the injunction.

Rachel June-Graber - 11/02/2015
Julie Singer - 02/27/2017


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Equal Protection
Defendant-type
Corrections
Jurisdiction-wide
General
Over/Unlawful Detention
Placement in detention facilities
Poverty/homelessness
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) City of Dodge City
Ford County
Plaintiff Description The plaintiff is a private citizen of Dodge City, Kansas.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations Equal Justice Under Law
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Moot
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2016 - n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Philadelphia Forfeiture
http://ij.org/case/philadelphia-forfeiture/
Date: Aug. 11, 2014
By: Institute for Justice (Institute for Justice)
[ Detail ]

Docket(s)
2:15−cv−09344−DDC−TJJ (D. Kan.)
CJ-KS-0002-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/26/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Class Action Complaint [ECF# 1]
CJ-KS-0002-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/21/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Agreement to Settle all Equitable Claims [ECF# 23]
CJ-KS-0002-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/22/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Judgment [ECF# 24] (D. Kan.)
CJ-KS-0002-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/26/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Crabtree, Daniel Dale (D. Kan.)
CJ-KS-0002-0003 | CJ-KS-0002-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Antosh, Peter J. (Kansas)
CJ-KS-0002-0001 | CJ-KS-0002-0002 | CJ-KS-0002-9000
Hubbard, Katherine (District of Columbia)
CJ-KS-0002-0001 | CJ-KS-0002-0002 | CJ-KS-0002-9000
Telfeyan, Phil (District of Columbia)
CJ-KS-0002-0001 | CJ-KS-0002-0002 | CJ-KS-0002-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Crouse, Toby (Kansas)
CJ-KS-0002-9000
Henson, D. Keith (Missouri)
CJ-KS-0002-0002 | CJ-KS-0002-9000
Pigg, J. Steven (Kansas)
CJ-KS-0002-0002 | CJ-KS-0002-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -