On August 7, 2017, two residents of East Baton Rouge Parish filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs sued East Baton Rouge Parish and Rehabilitation Home Incarceration (RHI) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), the Federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), and state law. The case was assigned to Judge Shelly D. Dick. The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center, sought monetary relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had violated federal and state anti-racketeering law, their Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection rights, and their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

According to the plaintiffs, RHI purported to provide pretrial supervision services and profited off individuals in East Baton Rouge Parish by requiring them to pay hundreds of dollars to RHI to be released from jail—effectively holding them for ransom. People awaiting trial before a criminal court were coerced into paying hundreds of dollars to companies before and after they were released from jail – even after paying bail. The complaint alleged that RHI turned pre-trial release into a for-profit concern that fueled wealth-based incarceration, harming low-income people who had not been convicted of a crime.

On August 8, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding the Sheriff of East Baton Rouge as a defendant. A few days later the plaintiffs filed a notice voluntarily dismissing East Baton Rouge Parish as a defendant. On September 27, 2017, the court approved the dismissal.

On October 27, 2017, the Sheriff of East Baton Rouge Parish filed a motion to dismiss all claims against him for failure to state a claim, arguing that even if the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were violated, the alleged policy of the sheriff was not the “moving force” behind the alleged violations. In February 2018, RHI and its executive director also filed a motion to dismiss with similar arguments.

On June 5, 2018, Judge Dick granted the Sheriff’s motion to dismiss, finding that there was no plausible basis to support the conclusory allegations that the Sheriff was “in agreement” or part of a “scheme” with RHI. 2018 WL 2708752. The court has not yet ruled on RHI’s motion to dismiss. The case is ongoing.

Jake Parker - 06/12/2018


compress summary