On November 3, 2016, three individuals under threat of being jailed for failure to pay fines to the City of Santa Fe, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. They sued the City of Santa Fe, the Municipal Judge, and the Chief of Police under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants run a modern-day debtors' prison to raise revenue for the City. They claimed that city officials have colluded on an unconstitutional two-tiered system of justice by which the City and Municipal Judge agreed to raise the costs of the traffic and other misdemeanor fines to boost revenue, and the City extracts payments from local residents. Police officers regularly jail people who fail to pay their fines without giving them access to a lawyer or the change to mount a legal defense, nor are they given the opportunity to see a judge for the constitutionally mandated hearing on their ability to pay. Moreover, the police chief makes jail intolerable, giving people he detains too little food to eat and depriving them of medical care. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the plaintiffs asked the court for injunctive and declaratory relief, damages, and attorneys fees. They also sought to certify a class.

The plaintiffs alleged that the revenue-generating scheme begins with Municipal Court proceedings, a court that's jurisdiction is limited to tickets for class C misdemeanors. These offenses are defined by Texas law as "nonjailable," "fine only" offenses, punishable by a fine up to $500. For an individual unable to make timely payments in full, the Municipal Court issues a "capias pro fine" warrant for failure to pay a fine. Individuals who have a capias pro fine have two options: pay in full or turn themselves in to the police. Police also search for people subject to capias pro fine warrants, sometimes arresting people at their homes in front of family, friends, and neighbors. Though police have the option of taking such individuals before a court, they do not. Instead they transfer those individuals over to the police chief and book them into jail where they will be held until they pay their debt in full or satisfy the fines with "jail credit."

Once in jail, the allegations continued, individuals are subjected to unsafe conditions without proper food. The complaint terms this the "Hungry Man policy," and alleges that jailed individuals are fed one Pop Tart for breakfast, one Pop Tart for lunch, and a frozen meal, such as a Hungry Man meal, for dinner. This amounts to only about 750 calories a day, which is less than half of the calories the average sedentary adult requires, and less than a third of the calories sedentary young men require.

Judge George C Hanks, Jr denied class certification without prejudice on September 18, 2017, without providing a detailed reason in the order. On October 11, one of the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed his claims. The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint on October 23.

The case is ongoing.

Saeeda Joseph-Charles - 12/02/2016
Virginia Weeks - 03/23/2018


compress summary