Does a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of procedures in Sherwood's hot-check court involve ongoing criminal cases or merely seek relief for future events?
That question is at the center of a dispute over whether U.S. District Judge James Moody Jr. should adopt the recommendations of U.S. Magistrate Judge Joe Volpe and dismiss the lawsuit.
Volpe recommended Jan. 25 that Moody throw the case out of federal court to allow the state courts to address the concerns first. He cited what's known as the Younger Abstention Doctrine, which grew out of a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case, Younger v. Harris, and requires federal courts to "abstain from exercising jurisdiction" over any case in which there is an ongoing state proceeding that implicates important state interests, and where "there is an opportunity to raise any relevant federal questions in the state proceeding."
Attorneys for the ACLU of Arkansas, which filed the lawsuit in August on behalf of a proposed class of people who have been trapped in an endless cycle of indebtedness as a result of the accumulative fines and jail time the court imposes for misdemeanor violations, say the lawsuit focuses only on "prospective equitable relief for future events."
They said this is true even though some of the plaintiffs still face additional penalties if they are unable to continue paying down fines and costs and end up being hauled back into the court.
But attorneys for the defendants -- Sherwood, Pulaski County, District Judge Milas Hale and Pulaski County Prosecuting Attorney Larry Jegley -- reiterated in replies that were due by day's end Wednesday that they believe the uncertain outcomes of the plaintiffs' cases constitute "ongoing criminal proceedings."
If, on the other hand, the plaintiffs are saying they are seeking relief only for future events, they lack a vested interest that is necessary for them to have "legal standing" to sue, the defense attorneys contend.
Either way, the defendants said, Moody must follow Volpe's recommendation and throw the case out of federal court.
"It was the plaintiffs that alleged the 'fine-collection scheme' involved additional charges and convictions against the plaintiffs for failure to pay," attorney Michael Mosley, who is representing Sherwood and Hale, wrote in a footnote of a 28-page reply filed Monday. "If they have no failure-to-pay charges, by their own allegations, they are no longer subject to any fine collection and their cases are moot."
Attorney David Fuqua, who represents Pulaski County, said in a reply filed late Wednesday afternoon that "the federal court's abstention from deciding [the plaintiffs'] claims is appropriate."
"There is little doubt there are ongoing state proceedings," Fuqua wrote. "Indeed, [the plaintiffs] have continually pointed out that the original convictions are not the end of the state court proceedings. Throughout their [lawsuit, they] assert that their original convictions result in multiple subsequent charges of failure to appear and contempt of court."
Fuqua added that according to the plaintiffs, the review hearings that occur after the initial conviction amount to "a never-ending spiral of repetitive court proceedings."
He also noted that part of the sentences in question require restitution, and "it does not appear that those sentences have been completed."
"At each turn," Mosley wrote, the plaintiffs' lawsuit "fundamentally remains an impermissible federal collateral attack on pending criminal prosecutions and [the plaintiffs'] existing convictions and sentences. Plaintiffs were required to appeal in state court to make the claims they make in this federal action."
While attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that there is no opportunity to raise federal challenges in Sherwood District Court because the court prevents them from doing so, and that most of the constitutional violations occur after a guilty plea, Fuqua said the plaintiffs "can present constitutional challenges during any of the multiple hearings that are conducted in Sherwood District Court," as well as on appeals to circuit court.
Addressing the plaintiffs' argument that Sherwood District Court is too biased to hear the constitutional claims itself, Fuqua said, "The simple fact that portions of the money collected in hot check prosecutions are directed to the city of Sherwood is not sufficient to establish impermissible bias."
He said all state courts in Arkansas assess costs, fees and fines that go into government coffers.
The plaintiffs, Fuqua said, "are challenging the entire process by which hot check prosecutions occur. They assert violations of their rights to counsel and due process, among others. Such challenges attack not only the underlying convictions but the subsequent convictions for failure to appear and contempt of court."
Mosley argued that while the plaintiffs have said they aren't trying to get their convictions and sentences declared unconstitutional and insist that they are challenging only a "fine-collection scheme," the so-called scheme, by the plaintiffs' own admission, "constitutes separate charges, convictions, and sentences for contempt of court for failure to pay court-ordered fines, fees, and restitution."
Moody hasn't said when he might rule on Volpe's recommendation.
Meanwhile, the Arkansas Administrative Office of the Courts has begun emphasizing fine-collection obligations and prohibitions in new training sessions for state and local judges, in response to concerns that the U.S. Department of Justice expressed to all state court administrators nationwide last year.
The concerns were expressed in a letter fueled by growing concerns about due process and equal justice in state and local courts, which also have led the ACLU to file similar suits in other states.
Metro on 03/16/2017