article: This case was severed from <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15529">West v. City of Hitchcock</a>, 3:16-cv-00309 (S.D. Tex.). The case originally pursued claims against the Cities of Hitchcock and Santa Fe at the same time, but the court severed the two on September 19, 2018. The original complaint, filed on November 3, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, involved three individuals under threat of being jailed for failure to pay fines to the City of Santa Fe. The plaintiffs 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 chance 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 detainees 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 class certification. The plaintiffs alleged that the revenue-generating scheme begins with Municipal Court proceedings, which its 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 them 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, 2017, one of the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed his claims. The other two plaintiffs continued with the same case at this point in time. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 23, 2017, adding a magistrate judge, in his individual capacity, and the Chief of Police, in his official capacity, as defendants. The case was temporarily assigned to Magistrate Judge Andrew Edison on June 1, 2018. The Magistrate Judge provided a recommendation against granting the defendant's various motions to dismiss, saying that all plaintiffs in the case had standing and that the injuries alleged in the case amounted to civil rights violations. Though he did not explicitly recommend severing the claims against Hitchcock and Santa Fe at this point, the Magistrate Judge discussed each plaintiff's claims against their respective cities separately. This likely influenced Judge Hanks's decision to sever the two cases when he adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation on September 19. Discovery continued on the case in 2018 and 2019. In May and June of 2019, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff filed a motion opposing it. Judge Hanks scheduled a jury trial for August 26, 2019, and the parties submitted witness and exhibit lists in anticipation of the hearing. However, on August 2, the plaintiff moved for court-ordered mediation, which the Judge granted on August 5. Magistrate Judge Andrew Edison oversaw the mediation, which occurred on August 13, 2019. The following day, the parties entered into a settlement agreement; the terms of the agreement were not publicly disclosed. The order dismissing the case from August 14 noted that if either party filed a motion before September 13, 2019 saying that the agreement could not be implemented, the case would close. No motions were filed, and the case closed on that date.
summary: This case, severed from <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15529">West v. City of Hitchcock</a>, involved individuals jailed for an inability to pay fines suing two cities in south Texas under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They described the situation as a "modern day debtor's prison" and added allegations that they were being underfed in the jail once they entered. Despite almost going to trial, the parties settled the dispute in mediation. The case is closed.