Varden v. The City of Clanton

Filing 77

JUDGMENT: it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court as follow: (1) The parties' 72 joint motion for entry of final judgment is granted; (2) The parties' 72 settlement agreement is adopted as the order of the court; (3) As expre ssly requested by the parties in their 72 joint motion for entry of final judgment at 2, the following facial declaration is adopted and entered by the court, as further set out in the judgment; (4) The parties are to comply with all terms of the [ 72] settlement agreement for the period set out in the agreement; (5) Plf's claims are dismissed with prejudice but with two exceptions: the court retains jurisdiction (a) to enforce the 72 settlement agreement for the period set out in the ag reement and (b) to resolve the matter of attorney's fees; (6) Plf Peggy Jones is allowed 42 days from today's date to file a motion for attorney's fees, costs, and expenses. The court will enter a briefing schedule after the motion is filed; DIRECTING the clerk to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 FRCP; This case is closed. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/14/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (wcl, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
PEGGY JONES, as
Administrator of the
Estate and Personal
Representative of Christy
Dawn Varden,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF CLANTON,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:15cv34-MHT
(WO)

JUDGMENT
In accordance with the opinion entered this date, it
is

the

ORDER,

JUDGMENT,

and

DECREE

of

the

court

as

follow:
(1)

The parties’ joint motion for entry of final

judgment (doc. no. 72) is granted.
(2)

The parties’ settlement agreement (doc. no. 72)

is adopted as the order of the court.
(3) As expressly requested by the parties in their
joint motion for entry of final judgment (doc. no. 72) at

2,

the

following

facial

declaration

is

adopted

and

entered by the court:
“The use of a secured bail schedule to
detain a person after arrest, without a
hearing on the merits that meets the
requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment
regarding the person’s indigence and the
sufficiency of the bail setting, is
unconstitutional
as
applied
to
the
indigent.
Without such a hearing, no
person
may,
consistent
with
the
Fourteenth Amendment, continue to be
held in custody after an arrest because
the person is too poor to deposit a
monetary sum set by a bail schedule. If
the
government
offers
release
from
custody after an arrest upon the deposit
of money pursuant to a bail schedule, it
cannot deny release from custody to a
person, without a hearing regarding the
person’s indigence and the sufficiency
of the bail setting, because the person
is
unable
to
deposit
the
amount
specified by the schedule. See Pugh v.
Rainwater, 572 F.2d 1053 (5th Cir.
1978); Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660
(1983); and State v. Blake, 642 So. 2d
959 (Ala. 1994).”
(4) The parties are to comply with all terms of the
settlement agreement (doc. no. 72) for the period set out
in the agreement.
(5) Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice
but with two exceptions: the court retains jurisdiction
2

(a) to enforce the settlement agreement (doc. no. 72) for
the period set out in the agreement and (b) to resolve
the matter of attorney’s fees.
(6) Plaintiff Peggy Jones is allowed 42 days from
today’s date to file a motion for attorney’s fees, costs,
and expenses.

The court will enter a briefing schedule

after the motion is filed.
The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this
document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant
to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
This case is closed.
DONE, this the 14th day of September, 2015.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson___
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE