Keen v. Judicial Alternatives of Georgia, Inc.

Filing 49

ORDER granting 18 Motion to Dismiss. Judgment shall be entered in favor of the Defendant and this case is closed. Costs are taxed against the plaintiff. Terminating 31 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 8/21/15. (cmr)

ORICINAL
KEEN, JR.,

PHILIP
PU!

<imi

vvrrv

*:,flf,g|',iP,li

THE UNTTED STATES DISTRICT COT'RT FOR
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION

IN

and al-I

l.ar]\'

2ft5AU62t
ml

oEher

<i i-rr.af arl

Plaintiff,
CIVIL

ACTION NO.

cv 31s-030
OF

.fUDICIAL ALTERNATIVES
GEORGIA, INC.
Defendant.

ORDER

In

of

funcLions
\\^rrf

ca-t-

years

recent

/

errrrr..A.t

.r1.

A ^ 4 rnm}h r e
e v. ' /l

^^nir.^t-

removed jurisdict.ion

(5.8.
anrrrr'lnnr'l

rnrl

nrrhl

ir.

vri fh

provide

probat.ion

i f ar:t-

i.\n

^F

-F/l

,nnn

F.l

.\1rt-

€^/iarF

t-ha

l

^

q

I ^ ' i t -h

q\/qf

r'\r'i.(r^l}/!+vqev

a

supervision

Fm

nri

rr^t- a

t- ha

been
.(ral- F

nri

cnn<

r

r.hniaa

l---3rr
- hr

tl-

i.\ti

services

1acrielrt-ian

nri

t-ha

r\1.6h=f

have

l- .\

r:a^r^i

typical

I adi

d'l .1- rr?a

from

services

(Egg 2000 Ga, Laws 926

Corrections

iac

i- i.\n

'rha

hr^].\:Ii^naa-e

government

at O.C.G.A. S 17-10-3 (f)),

nr.il-\:

ir1.r

hr^l

of

mrrninin.:lir.

. ^ lh t - g e e r+^ . t' 1 Lv ru!
rr

or

over misdemeanor probation

474) , codified
iac

traditional

n.'\rtf ra.t-

Tr

Department

the Georgia

.'\T

af -f
^
r uct uc

L"drry

/

of

federal
tt

zFd

l,!+v4e+lvq,

rrh.lay

number

and

state
$rr1.i rrati

I..\r

^h6z-r-a/l

a

cf

leaving
af

own

local

ararfina

expense

<1o1 1ri /-a

yrr.\L\,e I i .rn

irrolrr

or
f^

at. t.he expense of
fcr'l-

r

nrrrcad

lhe
l-ho

companies are

service

Contracts

State.

the

throughout

governed

108 (hereinaftser
M q-r\rry
fr -

ha^hl
PsvI/rs

referred

a

di

to as "the

q:rrraa

r^ri f h

1 -h a

Stat.ute") .

relegated
ov1 - r rf r isnf r r c t r r
u v
v !

:
e

-r,

profit

a

to

motivated
-r

m r q r . r r iL.y- LLri Jva+

!L^

l.Jr

f lr^f

..rn.'ehf

business

rE Y f- . r - 1 - . . r f F
^
l

LrrE

.r.lrrFr^nfiairl-

of justice

so cl-ose to the administrat.ion

functions

for

"Agreements

aE O.C.G.A. SS 42-8-1"00 t.hrough

Services, " codified

Probation

law,

by state

probat j.on

private

with

in

D"LcrLu!s

e I

should be

ent.erprise.
?non

fu rhvo lYtrdLh t
r s
r

otherwi. se .
This
courts
eP

and

e

rlera i 1s

lhe
and

administration

court.

of

of probation

the business
What is
business

r'l l adorl

noted

Whether

However,

rc

that

r

raorrl|

the

.\f

it
l-ha

Legislature

S 42-8-100 (g) (1) .

"Big Money" in
judge.

is

the

staEe

for

and

this
county

money by privatization
known that

q\/qrcm

was

I i m i t -i h . ' h r i l r ^ t - e n r o b a t . i o n s e r v i c e s
o. C.c. A.

is

compete

firms

the

on probatr.on

individuals

a number of

Eo t.he
of

unknown to the presiding

have saved significant

unknown.

qraL!Lu

is

opportuniLY,

governmenls
also

Ehat

known is

of

nrivatization

Whet.her there

from misdemeanor convicLions.

superior

to many challenges

fhe

supervision

a number of

and

have been vritness

in Georgia

.^n.cni!vrlL

district

federal

many abuses

F'rrrf hFr

careful

is

and

iI

eharr'l

specific

to misdemeanor cases.

are
d

Lrc

in
See

it

Finall-y,
particularly
u'a'r'ln

is

1-l.\A

la.'i<l.r-

misdemeanor

probation

scrupul-ousl-y

parsed

n]:imc

l-hair

lP .L ' v i L L LrAa i

L"J

rn

the

r-1-

i^h

-

k'^d

i11d

which

nrirr:t-

---l

inl-^

t-ha

of Lhe validity

have

plaint.if

f s'

nrrr.nnqae

the

1 r rh fa i r
L- ! r

ct-(IL:

i zirrr

opinions

each of

-Lrut9allLi'

hsfaro

far

Appellate
of

courts

upon a course

nraFal.an/-a

elements

question

which the ultimate

erbark

iI/a

crb

appellate

the

services.

c-r* - - -r-r! dI Y
- -r
r

t-ha

to

disinclined

are

,rhcaf

that

cl-ear

i r
f !n

I,urvu'Lr

Aaanor

naal

of the statute

ir

is

immersed.
'rh i s r-: qe i s rrq!
peripheral

of

basis
thrust

against

rdhich

allegedly

ata^t-ad

i r r dYnva c
qu !

but

important

impinges
=nrr

and sworn sLate

qrrnnl arf

s

u,i

r-hi
l- l-r

t.he main

fhF

function

prerogative

diSCretiOn

Of

trained

BACKGROUIID

nrowides

cf

irrdcre

l- ha

of

on the

of f icial-s.

SfrfrrfF

f'he

judicial

the

I.
The

instead

a governmental

of

upon

rrhi ch

must. be decided

issues

privat.ization

the

J

which

another

rl t vv$
q n/ n/rr n r r :{

.\f
l

follows:

as
^n\,
^f
v!

..rrrrli- ha

r^ri l- hi

rrnrrarni

n

f9 r h! a
r

rr

hd

i.\rlnl!v9rr9],

rrrl-h^ri

1-\'

\.1
^F

county,
is
that
contracts
with

authorized
co enter
into wriLEen
corporations,
enterprises,
or
raanni
ac
1-^
nvaui
^a
hr^I.\.
I i ^h
- *pervrs ron,
counseling,
coflection
services for afl moneys to

hc

fhF
:nlr
lr1r

and

na i d

hrr

:

seniFnce
m^).r,or/c
rha

def

ruhinh

daFanrianf

o1-her

end:nj-

i mnosed on

nrohati

hrr

^...\rri

the

.\y.ra r',a F i rrrr

i n

serwi

ces
3

l-.)

f he

defendant
^f

.'.\yrqerrrrFlr.'a

on

i n.r
I

r-.i

.\f

for

tefms

as

l-ha

nersonq

-^nlri

Of

weff
ha

as
n^id

-t- i .\n

convicted

of

in

Tn

placed

and

court

Ehat

. v ^ rrrrl u l t - l ,
-l
l, u

nr-' r
.

uctDs

n ^ v!n a v J + a L r v r r i a n
LU }J\ : t .

- rrrr-u En r i !
ar ! y
s

respons ibi l-it.y of

^
a

l eca
e

--l\/ete
a veLs
y!

l-ro

r.hrr.ral.l

to

Pursuant

an Agreement wj.th Defendant

af

,:aatnl

a

ssvtYfq/

h r . \ l vrv q
yr - :

r - riv r rn
u ^

. A
l N v T v a l / /I
n
I

f r'r'

ccrrri

l- .\

r'oq

a

y\r.\h:

nri

\/:j-

courL.

(Compf. 11 7-8 & Ex. A.)

lrw

Tre

vl

rhe

trd?aahaht-

f l en

i c

S40.00 per

^

v L

/

"sha]1
v e s:!r
u
I

nrnl_r:t-

h:,'t

F

notice

unl-ess written
Ieasf
"

hrr

nr.\Ir'i

dF

<1l-:f

l- hp

Attached

nrnrri

for

deq

f nr

a

a

tO

the

na\rmanl-

, , ' f\

(as opposed to

regufar
{Comnl

.1nF-1/F:r

provided

F5.

its

A

nal-ed

)

/?n\
The

lTd

terms

,ef

and

I

as

d:rrq

members

nrovided

of

tO

the

\

l"hc

of one (1)

for

is directed
n r_i g' y
.Y '

?

conditions

succeeding periods

Eo E.he contrary

fhirf.\r
(Td

l-arm

that
for

iFrmi

nt-hFrwi sc

F).r)i r:j- i.)n

errcd

^-arc

qrrncrrriqir-:n

renew aucomatically

^f

!s-v. \

I / ! v l q e

further

r rrr n! e o q s
q
r le

n^rf1'

ian

County Stat.e Court

. ^ m tn ^ nr1 ,r
vvrt ysr i

ref

r,rhi.h

offender

Ad?aamal.lf

Agreement

c

per

month,

sirrt-anai\ra,)

Tha

cnhadrr'l

I'aa

on

The Agreement was approved

ra^hm i dci

C c r.r,u,Jh 1 - r '
vvs

provision,

,Judicial- Alterna!ives

F

f i.\narq

the

senLence.

this

March 16, 2008, the Chief Judge of Treutfen
ent.ered into

in

nt-obal.ian
},rvvqurvra
r^'i t- h
t-ha

a felony

supervising

S 42-8-100 (g) (1) .

o.c.c.A.

probation

on

^1^-11

herein

or

to the ot.her
Che

TreutlFn

date

Of

Counfv

Commission changed in 2009 as new commissioners took office.
(compl . f 8.)
approve

any

This newly comprised
subsequent

contract

county

between

Commission did not
the

state

court

of

(Id'

Treutl-en County and JAG in 2009 or any year thereafEer.l
fl 10. )
fn
placed

,January

the

2012,
Phil-ip

Plaintiff

Keen,

the

J'r.,

sentence

misdemeanor

lwefve-month

(rd.

influence.

Pursuant

to the t.erms of his probation,

fl 16.)

$1,395.00 paid
as eight
lr-rrri - e

Pfaint.if f

! o , J A Gc o n s i s t e d

monthly probation

i r ru s Y oL "1 .r r
^nm n s
J

nf

nnnrri

r'j- i nn

Ewo years

Nearly

for

& Ex.

c.)

paid JAG the

a portion

of

the

of more t.han one and as many

awnreqq'l

\,t

(Id.

fl 17.)

aq

staf

f h:f

In fact,

ha

(Id.,

fee.

supervision

judgment that
as wrilten

108,

Plaintiff

count I.)
the

to JAG under

Count rr.)

t There are
di s approved
beLween the

following

rl(J

termination

the insEant purported

filed

declaratory

(rd.,

his

firrqf

Ex'

na\/

C.)

and Served his

per j-od .

probationary

(Id.,

cha!

att

Pd,rLr

through

claims

- r ' r Ia s s e s s e d f e e s a n d c o s t S

n d - ^I.I iL*Tr! . i € !. F - ^ . i r
l L
rI

from

surcharges and probation

fees of $40.

a $40 per month probation

Pl-aintiff

15-l-6

ff

County

conviction

Plaintiff

sum of $1,395.00 in payment of fines,
(Id.

his

upon

under

Treutl-en

probation

on

driving

fees.

of

SEaEe Court

staLe

the

Statute,

acEion,

O.C.G.A.
is

and applied,

seeking a

SS 42-8-l-00

unconsLitutional

also seeks to recover

the fees paid

law cl-aim of money had and rece j-ved.

Presently,

dtrEgclut

class

probation,

of his

Defendant JAG has filed

L1^^t

rhp

or sought to amend the
State Courc of Treutlen

TrFrrf

a m o tj - o n

I F nr r v^ rr r n J - 1 / v '\ O m m l S S i o n
e u rL l
f

relationship
contractual
County and JAG.

to

the

dismiss

of

consideration

to

pleadings,

the

arguments of counsel

in brief

The Court

grounds.

2015.

27,

argument,

GRANTEDfor

the

Upon

and

1aw,

Ehe relevant

and at oral

is

Ehe complaint

dismiss

several

mot j-on on JuLy

argumenL on the

oral

heard

upon

complaint

the

the motion
slated

reasons

herein.

LEGAIJ ANALYSIS

II.

himseff

Ewo causes

asserts

Pfaintiff

and a purport.ed

Pl-aint.if f
uncons titut

ional , inter

the

and

Fifth

judgment
as written

afia,

Constitution

Constitution.

Georgia

For

asserls

a

received,

whereby

Pl-ainLif f

fees

Under this

contract.

to recover afI
motion

is

under

Unitsed States

the

second cause of

claim

alleges

had

money

for

the

that

action,
and

probation

to JAG unlawf ul-l-y or under a void

supervision

JAG

Statute

the

and as applied,

second cause of action,

probation

dismiss,

Eo

state

were paid

the

law

Plaj-ntiff

supervision

of

under the Due Process Cfause of

and, as applied,

the

behalf

cause of actlon,

that

Amendments to

Fourteenth

on

action

For the first

cfass.

a declaratory

seeks

of

seLs

fees paid to JAG.

forth

seeks

Plaintiff

In its

grounds

for

seeks

the

as written

and

several

dismissaf.
A.

Declaratory

Pl-aintif
followinq

f 's

,Judgment Claim

declaratory

declarations:

(1) that

judgment

cl-aim

the statute,

lhe due process

as applied,

offends

FourLeenth

AmendmenEs of

(compl-. (f
Fl-,6 irra

debt

.,l.arrap

v v v ! p

} J !

the

of

^]rd

Georgia

fhe

nr.rhiL|i

^ - .- : 5 -iL^ ! r ' ' ^
1

ct

the

viol-ates

for privace

ceorgia
service

contracts

that

county governing

E^^^
rccs

several- grounds

!'i ref

fhc

fnt'l-,
(citing

private

from

the

probation

by a current
and (5) that
supervision

judgment

for

Statu!e

is

claims

mootness/
fail-ure

const. itut ional-

C.\rrrf

rearii

lrr .li snoses

to
and

r')f Plaintiff'S

cl-aims based upon a

court

lack

noE onLy has the power but

F I -^

possibility

drawn

153);

the declaratory

moves to dismiss

the

constitutional

dtLy

such fees

of

coLLecE probatj-on

to

services

on

and res
state
the

a
JAG

valid.

Agreement is

ctu

(4) that

l-ack of standing,

including

JAG afso

because

federal

doct.rine

(id.

that. the

probation

rL'lt,v

are void

authority

JAG moves to dismiss

claim

(3)

51);

for

t r= / \
J ,4

Il

judicata,

52);

offends

qnnmenl-

imnri

have not been re-approved

authority

fawful
(

t:a
\!s.

f

Constitution

imnosition

f hee
err

powers

of

(id.

constitution

JAc lacked

thrrs.

separation

t-)n .1f

and

the Fifth

as appfied,

(]-d= {

Constitution

---,and

IE!

ti

of

States

the st.atute,

establ-ishmenL of a fee schedule
lb

UniLed

the

(2) that

49-50);

clauses

that

I

nrr
f r r 9 u !r4r i

re
s

jurisdiction

usA v. Battl-e,
Johansen v.

i nto

irrri

of
afso

sd icLion

does not exist

559 F.3d 1170, rT76-77
Combustion Eng's,

Inc.,

f ederal-

standing
the obligation
whenever

arises."

the

AmnesE.v

(11th Cir.

2009)

170 F.3d

1320,

(1Lih Cir.

1328 n.4
Articl-e

l-999).

Federal

of the United SCates Constitution

III

actuaf
cI.1.

The doctrine

controversv

well

'personal

standing

i nwokino

of

cntv-.
v.

are

pA

!e,

of

Wi.ldlif

of

two types

-1.i

12a6.

1261

assume alf

aclack

mat.ters
affidavits,

e,

^f

outside

his

outcome of

sdir-j- inn.

\v .
'

therein

v.

facial

Ru r rI 1
pA

the

are

Tn

considered.

Id.

Dunbar, 9L9 F.2d. 1525, L529 (11'5 Cir.

osceola
Luian

. C . ^ J rcu^!-o .
Ae
c
*

true.

such

the

attacks

A f acial-

Id.

a
4

r a a . \ ' l \ r i nv^ r r r v

pleadings,

As

(1992) )

as

1990))

I c
r

Ma . ! T f
r
.

attack

is

the Court

in

f-^Fr,-l

fact,
-f

test.imony

(cruotinq

and

A factual

mat.E.er j urisdiction

n f L ecu: fdr irn ar <
y]
Y

mav be

bears

2000) (citing

1 qq?)

"

1987).

Plaintiff

555,56I

. - ^ h a r l h . \ v6 -r ,
lvvlr n rq ' s

he must

t.he litigation.

standing:

('r tr a r

subj ect

t-ha

to

brinqs

claim;

See Bischoff

504 U.S.

all-egatsions

challenges

iTepyeLL ie
f l l r a c h a ^ tr-v v a

1999) .

of t.he compl-aint and requires

based on the contenLs
to

prosecute

standing.

chal-lenges
. { - 'c ri ! e ! 4 r
(jr ^

C(LL-C(UJ\-

104 F

irrri

NAACP

the time a plaintiff

222 F.3d 874, 878 (11th Cir.

Defenders

+v=

the

fcderal

establ"ishing

Elc-,

LCLULtlc(t

in

of

819 F.2d 1030, 1033 (11th Cir.

Phvfer,

l-hF rrartv

to

S 2,

III,

SEaEe Conference

chat. at

stake'

Tucker v.

burden

ca.

settled

he must have

have a

t.o adiudicating

Cox, 183 F.3d 1259, 1262 (aa h Cir.

is

under

is srounded in the case-or-

"standinq"

reouirement.

Branches v.

suit

of

limited

" U.S. Const. art.

"cases" and "controversies.

"It

court.s are

f r^l'

and

Lawrence v.

Here, Defendant

in

t - h e f - loy m 4n rle:, i
ev r +s r

nf .

The Court

plaintiff

it

Earry

show that

once

again

ic:

far-i 3l

long

lacks

108,

in

convj-cted

Mccee v.

General of

Solicitor

1322, 1325 (l1rh Cir.

with

a private

Services,

to

Sentinef.

Id.

at

probation

$186.
2 Prior
service

that
placed

courE,

fee.

supervision

service

Ga.,

he
on
see

727 F.3d

companyi Sentinel

misdemeanor conviction
Id,

1323,

at

and to pay a monthly

he

faced

1324.

At

the

a

sentences

and he was ordered
he paid

the balance

to

probation

hearj"ng,

of his

in

on

fee to

Sentinel

and

revocat.ion

Mccee's

held

for

Mccee was

supervision

reporting

fee,

senLence was vacated
two months or unEif

because he

Hill-s Mccee, had been pfaced on

When Mccee stopped

montshly
rd.

hearing.'

a

Statute,

likelihood

Lwo Ewelve-monLh consecutive

serve

pay a fine,

his

the

of

Richmond Cnty.,

LLC, upon his

probation,

payj-ng

case that

standing

state

n r r l . , ir n , . l r l r n k F 1 ] n e s q n d o b s t r u c t i o n .
^
ordered

standing

2013).

In Mccee, t.he plaintiff,
probation

of

a similar

t.here was a sufficient
be

attack.

const itut ional ity

the

al-l-egations

on the matter

and made to pay a probation

probation,

offender

based on the

has hel-d in

SS 42-8-100 through

not

would

f hrle

Circuit

challenging

o.C.c.A.
could

and

need not

the Efeventh

since

f ' s standing

Plaintif

.TAG chal-l-enges

original

custody

probation

for
fee,

rd.
thereto,
hours.

Mccee's fine had been converted
Mccee, 727 F.3d at 1324.

to community

Offender

SenLinel

r r l - i . - \ r r slr. a l J fe , 1 /
Y
i

state
,u . h! ^ h
Pv r

f !i!nv /! !l! i n . '
!
!

fhF

..Jf

M-1:aa

f..) hc

The case was then
summary judgment for

at

which

26, 2OL!) (HalI,

q}/I/vs

,

F.3d aE l-325.

writ

Circuit

:

I i rra

sent.inel
..\nf

reserved

It

which

granEed

General- and

determined that
Mccee's
Id'

*4.

at

found

ouE t.hat whife

the

and the Sol-icitor

r.rrzFrq.\/

"

3

district

ttlccee' 727

McGee's dispute

McGee's suiE

court's
for

t.he

successful-

of mooEness to be erroneous.

habeas corpus,

j udgment against
ad

Elevent.h

IE pointed

of

the writ

Evans, 20]-f WL 10067984 (S.D. Ga. Aug.

had come to an end upon the state

the Sheriff

lafFr.

the Soficitor

ciEing

j-he

+

f.he

Court,

and subsequent release.

:nnea l

and

aE L324-25,

court

court/ s consideration

s-EraLLu

this

cl-aims were moot,

habeas petition

\\hraeayrl-

removed to

The distrj-ct

J.).

constitutional

.rn

Id.

cfaims.

Lo

the

r ncomoetent.

Iv

mFnfal

General

granted

it

time

righE

d:ws

Fi rre

fd.

i:=:

the defendants,

Mccee v.

Sentinel.3

P!

.

on Ehe constitutional

ruling

a

Sf^f11fe

in state

challenged

McGee al-so

Services'

a hearing

held

court

of

t.he Solicitor

He named Lhe Sheriff,

counsel.

^^hdrij-

competency to waive his

mental

his

court. chal-fenging

of habeas corpus

a writ

filed

McGee immediately

with

issuance

declaratory

Generaf,

however,

Tri

had been di-smi-ssed from the c a s e a f t e r t h e w r i t
The Sheriff
corpus was granted. Mccee, 2011 WL 10057984, at *2
of habeas
n.8.
10

should

El-eventh

likefihood

sufficient

"'a

he will

that

ornit.led)

Because Mccee could

Likelihood

that

'l

ar-k nf

to

then

mAf ter

the

challenge

show that

and placed

srii cl-i on.

Mccee is

at

Id.

such showing.
r-laim

Therefore,

reqnc-'rin('

lhc

rr"

F.^fs

Pl-aintif f 's

..)nsfifrrfional

itw

on

lacks

the

Statut.e

in

the

tO

declaratory
the

tha!
future.

Sufficient

of

the
court

likelihood

and pl-aced on probation
3l Iaaarr

the

1326.

of

constiEuLionaliLy

be convict.ed

h^t-

with

a plaintiff

that

he will

has

case

remanded the

Lhere is a substantial

.iff

by

he Iacked standing. n

he can show tha!

Fteinf

he had

a sufficienL

demonstrate
convicted

to

(quoted source

Id.

unless

HFrF

standinq

remand the case to state

ittri

in

holding

be

The

be affected

hel-d that

court

the district

The clear
standing

Circuit

Circuit

srh-iect

not

would

again

the Eleventh

mandaCe that
f or

he

The El-eventh

Id.

Eo have

order

court

standing.

upon

conduct in the future.'"

a11egedIy unlawful

probation,

based

in

t.he district

that

Mccee woufd have to

Statute,

the

held

case

that

found

Circuit

challenge

the

determined

have

then

Circuit

The E]eventh

make

judgment

Statute

under

a

counse] states that the Mcqee court
In one of Ehe briefs,
courts lacked jurisdiction
over the
that the federal
"ruled
to lack of standing was pure
habeas mat.ter and any reference
(Doc. No. 4!, I 2,)
I am unabl"e to accept that
dicta."
heJd that McGee
The Mccee court expressly
charac E.eri zat ion,
'l
--1.^^
IctsIlEL.r

SfafrrfF

^r--^ihd
sLdrru-Lr19

and

for

F ^J
L\

this

- h r e lf
ur r '

a :
tl e rrr1 . r a

rF^s.)n

fhA

if

...\nel-il-rrl-

m^nd^fcd

For an exampfe of
to the state court.
one t.hrough three supra.
11

i.\n:

remand

l i l-\r

of

^f

Che

t-ha

case

"pure dr-cta, " see pages

states

the United

be granted
lln
^^,r?{-

iaard

t}ro

whpj-har fhe nlainf.iff

att

ra.q.rn:hle

complaint.'s

r ^^-^r-inF

..,r u(JLrLPrarrr

v.

true,

as

plausibfe

on its

Twombfy,

required

to

state

face.'"

plead

Id.

not akin
than

a

as

a

Crue,

alleged. "

possibility

Id.

must

and construe
to

favorabfe

the

f act.ual matter/

that

Befl

rL.^
rrrE

aflows

the defendant

"The plausibility

requirement,'
that

a

but

that

relief

to

aE 678 (ciEing

that

well-pled

its

only

the

662, 678-79 (2009) .

claim

content

"factuaf

to a 'probability
sheer

The court

need noc accept

(2007) )

draw the reasonabl-e inference
the misconduct

-r3 s t
' $

however,

U.S.544,570

550

on the merits.

must ..contain sufficienE
'to

nof

Ramsey' 3L2 F.3d L222, 1225

555 U.S'

Iqbal,

- f Dr
L o '1 - o

accepted

v.

conclusions

fegal

Ashcroft

facts.

L r ^ ^ t rIY r LL*
^r
r

c:D

The court,

2oo2l .

cir.

prevail

in the complaint

see Hoffman-Puqh v.

plainLiff.
(11th

i n f e -r- r ^=-r r u

r.omnlaini

1.ha

232, 236 (1974).

al-1 facEs alleged

as true

l-2 (b) (6) .

Procedure

of

ultimatefy

R h o d e s, 4 L 6 U . S .

Scheuer v.
accept

wiII

can

under Rufe 12 (b) (6) , the

qurl rl r e rfs r ir r -/ i e n c v
f
e

lt L a, r rr a 1
: q

of

must be

al-l-egations

Civil

a moEion to dismiss

considering

\-\.r\M

Rul-e of

Federal

under

a lack

for

upon which relief

to sEate a claim

failure

for

judgment

decl-aratory

The remaining
dismissed

must be dismissed

Constitution

AtI.

*r
^ihFi
l./f4frrrf

the
is

corD.
.i^

€t
!!

court

fiable

has

to
for

standard

j-t asks for

defendant

is

is

more
acted

Id.

unlawfully."

v : r Y r. r u
! ^1 t-

t -v
L ^

ra1

iaf

.a].r^r'a

qncnrr'l:rirrc

t-ha

/,

I a\r-l

:n.l

t.hat is plausible

must "staEe a cfaim to relief

to raise

aI]egations

must incl-ude enough "factual-

complaint

a plainEiff's

such motion,

To survive

fh.,lqe

a

fncfq

on iE.s face."

Twombl-y, 550 U. S. at. 570.
now the const itut ional i L.y of t.he St.atute under

Addressing
tL l1 - , 6
- rE

r :e v lry fi4
e a^ d a

a.\rql-

s r r n r cu mup
'L'

e.]rrrf

act

privatizing

p st/!

of

has

i l-1rl- i.rn

probation

455,

S.E.2d

Supreme Court hel-d that
al-fows

SenEinel- or

r c a !n * i rrr a s
v
ul lr

indirridrr:l

due

withouL

to
the

of a private

to

the discretion
determine

the

senL.encing

a probationer
punishment

Id.

Id.

court.,
the

is indigent
other

than

our

The courE pointed

out

Furlher,

to probation

still

remains

for

determining
al-ternative
for

faifure

and
with
court

Lhe sentencing

and to consider

13

which

system Ehat is

Lo comport

a defendant

imprisonment

iberfv

with

fails

responsibility

'l

or

anything

probation

probation

of

Georgia

company to

nr.\r\art\/

t.here

aL 467.

sentence

conditions

tso bear

it

the

the statute

probation

is

Glover,

the

Glover,

her

nor

that

t.he Georgia

on the face of

or

law

of due process. "

cont.inues

to

his

of

unfair

fundamentally

notions
that

process

the creation

aulhorizes
so

of

mere

the

addressing

In

in

\rE\rJ.yfa

LLc v.

Servs.,

private

other

Lrrs

chat

notion

2014).

concerns

LL_L
LrrclL

violates

Offender

" [n] othing

any

fhe

services

(Ga.

466-5'7
process

due

plainEiffs'

nr.v r c s- r -rf

f-6r1rl-e

reiecl-ed

exnresslw

See Sentinel

Constitution.
766

fha

whether
measures
to

pay a

dat-\l-

Td
=l+:

Fl -ihr-i

Thrrs

due process

in

the

€€, -

F'^f

case

instant

announced in Glover by the sLate's
Chi caqo v.
harrc

nn

Morales,

:rrl- h.ri

i-\/

more narrowl-y
highest

ennlicd

probation
arrf hori

court

lenoes

i her-:n^a

the
l-ha

1rr

aal

al] .\\rar

^r

rheir

Pl,aintiff
caf-

its

c

faiLs
f.\rf

mArA

..f

that

the

h

n^

statuLory

.'.\ndrr.-i-

nri

val

Georgia

Pl-aintif f 's

of

claim

as

See Citv of

qf

^

by

ef

F

that

courts
qf

rl- rrf a

staters

i zi

comport
'766 I
:l

:n.l

fhe

E.2d

nri v,afc

t.he statutory
at

467-68.

. XC€SS].v€
;

probation

For

qanl-ilral

l-hal-

Id.

as

SupervlSlOn

that

were not

aE 462.

In

the

Eo asserL a comparabLe as-applied
aI

FL-r

IF.t:Ii..,!na

or

contractual-

crL

authority

on Ehe StaLute
I ihar't-rr

qal-

Supreme Court

decl-araL.ory

nf

with

Iarrad

r-^ 1 1 F/-r-

"as-applied"
n.r/'

plainEiffs'

the

sentences.

hiq

so-called
nf

t-.\

atlack

he made a constitutionaf

Plaintiff's

.\f

Condrrr.f

on Eheir

corrrt-ordered

t-Ia

to

c,.\rr.rhf

of

hi<

a

court.

given

l.rl:inFiffq

n:rf

him

sEate

I enorr:rra

G] ovcr.

imposed conditions

outside

viofat.ions

(1999], (federal

6I

invofved

Sfafrrfc

or

acted

highest

not. address

failed

fees

^ h ri q f r e r tr Y L d A
ah
ur t

of

to

construction

which

I ar'l- arl

case at bar,

f ha

did

company that

l-v of

i I 1 aar'l

the

fail

41,

rrla

sFions

.

clover
chal

.'nnql-

than

court)

The

527 U.S.

l- .\

adf

f .1rf

has

judgment

h

drra

claim

nor has
to

p:l-har

compl-ain of "the

nr.\,..a<1c

reject.ed.

Fih^
LrLrLc

"as applied"

ir1f ara<i-e

challenges

-6.arry

.a I I a.r.a i- i ^nd

Accordingly,
respeccing

the

of

constitutionaliEy
constit.ution

fails

state

to

for
357

crrnonri

-qPsrvrFrvrr

ainn

2d
faa

L28I ,
fnr-

(o.

1287

n:rnleeq

v.

Little,

m vn nufr h ' l \ / f e e f o r i e f r a w c o s i
L'L r r
r+
1
v.

services) ,. Pennsylvania
(separation

of

powers

requiring

probaLioners

expenses

of

offender

is

638 A.2d
not

supervision

civil-

for

programs) .

judgment claim

nerrrr.e

in this

($30.00
f ee f or

21-3 (Pa. 1-994)

viofated

to pay monthl-y fee

in

1997)

srrnerwisi on is

Nicely,

Sebelius,

may be exempted) ;
(N.D.

6s4

fee

($25 monthl-y

r.lrrniti\/e

offenders

doctrine

dec]aratory

Plaintiff's

of

a civil

2005)

nof

65r,

564 N.w.2d

probation

owens v.

Kan.

^rF

is modest and indigent

because it
Glaspie

punishment.

allegation

of

constitutes

to contract

noc a criminal

supp.

F.

t.he imposition

because

a claim

services,

Georgia

Ehe

powers

of

separaEion

fees pursuant

supervision

under

stsaEe a clai-m and must be dismissed.

PlainEiff's

Finally,
faits

to

Statute

Ehe

by

statute

administrat.ive
Accordingly,
regard must. be

dismissed.5
B.

Money Had and Received

Plaintiff
expl-icitly

contends
recognized

the

that.
a

CLaim

cause

of

Georgia
action

Supreme Court
for

has

money had and

5 The remaining decfaratory
judgments cfaims pert.aining to t.he
be addressed in
of the JAG Agreement will necessarily
validity
of Pl-aintif f 's money had and received claim in
consideration
the next section.
15

under

received
at

fook

case is

that

warranted.
of 13

case origj-naEed out of the consol-rdation

The Glover

cases

individual

i-n Glover.6

circumstances

simi]ar

filed

Richmond and Col-umbia Counties

in

by

probation

misdemeanant.s who had been under Ehe supervis j-on of

Sentinel,

a privat.e probation

ml^^
rrrc

.iov.

*1^.i-F.itFP-LdrrlL-!

the

under

Scatute

probation
l.

not

of

dictates

r yytvr eu
qn n r n v z a d

to

recover

fhe

rrr'l i ncr

l . r r r fuhr o e
!f
r

added)

Tn

rrnirrqf lw
srrnerrri si on

lvl e v !rY r : .
aa ci o

private

which

enri

ehed

fees

when
i n
^y

court

in

of
that

were

un1awfully.

Id.

at 470.

5 sentinef offender Servs.,
20!4) (Thompson, C.,J.) .

LLC v. Gfover,
L5

contravention

of

framework
\s'L'!rrs.Df

that

Sentinef

col l er-f ed

fees

but

unlawfully

Tr
g!4:

Ehose

qrrnrama

fees

statutory

forrnd

Sentinel-

excess

their

sought was

lSentinell

'

1-he corrrf

Georgia

^

supervision

probation

ar y - a lLr
-I L c r ira lra f.rL r a ! c .

r)artieular.

5srrLErrl-frry

sentencing

the

flcnrrri

hrhat the plaintiffs

fees

f.ha

money had and received

from misdemeanor probationers

coflected
the

^^..-hE

,5\Juv

probation

authorized

supervision

"probation

that

.\f

the

the

under
fhis

i.r1:lif1/

of

- . ^ r^r
D

in.t

766 S.E.2d aE

cl-ause

o.f

fees

Lo note

contractually

-^1-l<1l- ifrrf

process

F1

TTr f.rrmrr'l^f

Cour! was careful

l-ha

PrdrrrL--!!r--

supervision
T.t

l annad

due

,- nrhE
^
L r

^^n^r.r ts,.F.r _
^

L(JllsL-LLLIL-L(Jlr.

le-rLsa t r \ r
r v^

ahr'l

Glover,

company.

D

was

nrohaf

i on

ar:f hori

zed

hw

fhe

ar:lhori

zed

'h w
]

fhe

On this

last

point,

766 S.E.2d 456 (ca.

never

Commissioners

Board of

the Chief .Iudge and Sentinel-,

f ^'. rnnr'la1/
h:d
,rrvrrvl
^].n^n/l

av srl lr h t a ru
^
v

- hr-dl r f s r lr a n d a
Lr
Ye

rha

with

cLaim,

have a potenLial

In

=
l u
q flf s Y ea a a / l

bar,

from

fh:f

l An

court

Id.

stated

f s soughE

aE 472.

that

For this

the plaintiffs

a Eheory of money had

only
to

nr.\h^i-

a.rlrnf

\.'

that

alleges

57-58.)

vvsrrel

nrohar'ion

the expiration

and

the
i.\n

extent

Plaintiff

C^mmi

attacks

CounEy, not

<rcri ^rt

riElrEr

tal

a plaint.if

..\mr\.ar1\/

Defendant

without.

a cause of

recognized

fees jn conEr:avenEion of Ehe Statute.

AgreemenE v/iEh Treutl"en
'lrrarrf

nrirral-e

after

sentence.

n.r.irrrl-a

"unIawfully

(compl . ff

.li d

the pl-aintif

actsion under

Glover

fha

Plaintiff

him

j-hc

Rather,

money had and received

supervision
at

r]rrt-

fees they paid

cause of

the

short,
for

hand

.\l- hFr

Id.

and received.

action

Sentinel-.

Supreme Court

the Georgia

The

f ha

original-

of Ehe term of their

contrac!.

rral i di t-rr nf

of any probat.ion

recovery

a cl-aim

coul-d sustain

an inval-id

under

n

Supreme Court

Georgia

lhe

n1- i f f c

a:re.'rrf i nn

contracL

service

nl:i

J

Columbj-aCounty

with

contract

Thus.

^nd received

rv!

of O.C.G.A. S 42-8-

in vioLation

t.he Columbia county plaintiffs

hel-d that

Di

aE 471,.

Id.

was inval-id,

between

Lhe contract

auEhorized

Sentinef's

1 O O ( g ); a c c o r d i n g l y ,

coLumbia county's

Gl-over showed that

in

facts

the undisputed

r-.'l

<ri rrrrcd

l cr'l- pri

In the case
fees

JAG collected

val- j-d contract[]

the
l- hF

basis
.'.\ni-

."

of t.he JAG

the validicy
on

f

raal-

that
hlrl-

the
arn

the

that

basis

f n l fl . v\ w f r i n ro
v r :

l-he

lvf

was not properly

when

r rz .
L

-^h1-?--r-

iht-^

t-ha

qF.t-rrt-o

m:rr

d

]_ra

..rrl-

chief

of

is

f ha

the

r-hi

accordance

such

also

to

or

l-h.h

r,,hit-

authorizat.ion

the

coltnfv's

S 42-8-

party

Lhat either

(the

Here,

to cure any
Lhere is

judge of Treutlen

argument

that

no

CounEy
Indeed,

JAG Agreement.

Counly Commission sought the termlnation

' Criticaffy,
JAG collecEed

pnt- prFd

rhaf

O,C.G,A.

fl 13.)

the

terminate

qcrrri.e

f inn

the agreed uponi

and an opportunity

the chief

no a]legation

of

Ex.

Ehe AgreemenE aE any time

Ex. A,

that

an

(Compl,

_irrdrrp

with

conLract."

days writtsen notice
( C o m p l. ,

ef

JAG

wit.h

term

nrnl_r:

:nnrorr:'l

,JAG) may terminace

JAG attempted

there

f .)

and "in

or aflegation

dispute
or

or

breach.

materiaL

l'x/

The JAG Agreement states

judge

upon thirty

ad

qrrhier.l.

ra.j-

provisions

100 (S) (1) .

rref

p

The

2008.

from year to year.
nrirr:f

contract.

the terms of

with

one-year

f h^l-

the

the JAG Agreement

March

initial

an

before

a val-id

that

in

signed

nrarridaq

l- armi

authority,

governing
written

was
for

It'ha

\
I

issue

The

and in accordance

renewal provision

automatic
(l
I

it

JAG Agreement

the

?

ferm

or allegation

executed

provided

Agreement

r

.)rrF-\/Fal.

no dispute

Statute

re-approve

wheLher the JAG Agreement is

There is

the

not

did

initial

Ehen is

Court

it

the

Treutl-en

of the JAG Agreement.

in the Compl-aint t.hat
there are no aLLegations
probations
supervision
fees in any manner other
i | rs
r " .r\. . . \ 1 r f d!a d u
P!v!

i e

of

f r-;r

h ry
Dr

the sentencing
18

...rnl-

court.

r-^F

-h/l

^n

l a'

uPvtr

Thlrq

fhe

cc)rrrt of

State

governing

authorit.y

Agreement

from

year

and at

all

provision

consensual-l-y

to
case

thj-s

the Agreement after
of

bind

or

that

any subsequent
approval- of

may not,
so

the .TAGAgreement in

County

is

as

between

O.C.G.A.
h^iniad

.^,,nt-v

8

the

Treutlen

S 36-30-3
^rIl-

:l-1.\\ra

t-ha

r-ar-mi n'ei- i ^n

r]er-:rcri a

corrrf

does

to

s

noL

- r ? " \ l 1l i . ' : f

l.iohfs

h.ave

prevent

government."s

for

County

county

several

free

Pl-aintif f

Commission nor
Commission's

tha!

.rf

I

f.)

this

The

County Commission,

Court. and JAG.

come into
i /\r1

First,

reasons.

Ehe JAG Agreemenc.

State

confrarv

heLd

S 36-30-3,

by an ordinance,
Eo

Agreemenl , though approved by the Treutfen
is

In support

March 2008.

a party

not

JAG Agreement. was

coul-d be bound by the

This argumenE is unavailing
Treutfen

parties,

the

of

to o.c.c.A.

Ehe 2009 Treutl-en

commission

renewal-

lawsuit.

took office.

points

successors

neither

this

.fAG

the

County Commission did not approve

Pfaintiff

its

co]rnfv' s

under

intent

in matt.ers of municipal

legislation
contends

to

fhe

automatic

t.hat. the

argues

Ehat. "[o] ne council

iLsel-f

the

new commissioners

t.his contenEion,

which provides

under

che manifest

because the Treutlen

invafid

operated

cimes re.levant

in

Plaintiff

year

to

cont.rary

Yet,

Counf\,' ^nd

TreuLlen

pfay.

?4-?n-?

l-he

Thus,

Second,
urarr'ld

terms

sf ^t- rrf F

airra

of

annl

the

i es

as
t-ha

JAG

ro

and t.o contracts
as wel-1 as
counties as wel-1 as municipalities
(Ga. 1990) .
See Madden v. Bell-ew, 397 S.E.2d 687
ordinances.
I9

era

r . a r i e-q e ri n
rr

insL.ance,

excenf
L^vvI/

1^^i-l-{-i-'^
Ie(l_LtiI.,

e

s,rt-

a

h^vi

Citv

R.R.

CoasL Line

Eee afso
l qaA \

of

f hF

Also,

a}rif
ry

314 S.E.2d

Mccahee,

l rz

financial

v.

Chatham Cnty.

for

debt

(Ga. l-980) .

9I2

Treutlen

Iv y vhr, . r n
l r

t-hF

lhe
nlrim

r r nra n
syv r

probation
rcnnani
i-hF

or unlawfuf
t.hat

fcFq

rcliFf

supervision

za.7

a

a r ee
qt

authori-zed

r.^l1ta

for

a984);

(Ga, App.

855
zed

the

JAG

contracts

that

of the County.

Chatham Advertisers,

Citv

pl^infiff'c

f . \ r evo . i vn rrr Jr
J
+

urhi r-h

express

of

East Point,

258

creaEe a

county,

Court. determines

ufqf!"

of

The JAG Agreemenl does not

!vr

Agreement is void

has been

(Ga. App.

artf hori

obligation

371 S.E.2d 850 (Ga. 198e)r Brown v.
S.E.2d

449

341 S.E.2d

evnresq

For

.rhr!'

}i^s

S 36-30-3 may not apply

comm'rs of

See Bd. of

Co.,

virt.ue

by

Lhere

here.

r.elevant

when the contract

d^

sl- ^f rrf c

creaLe a debt or

do not

.l^

v.

Athens

t-ta:'-c

Agreement.

1-^

io1

government

local

Frr

Seaboard

if s:nnlir':f

does not apply

with

L_LVe

Fn

i rlns

+

S 36-30-3
into

entered

S 36-30-3 applies,

even assuming that

third,

Agreement.

l.lf

.imnosed
rLrL}/vvvv

conEract.

m:\/

fees
^..f
and

inn

is without
Plain!iff
hc

.r1-.^nf cd

COIIeCted

Plaintiff's

failed
f.\r

l-hc

Georgia

mnne'r

had

Under

:

and

to

JAG

state

rcr-otrcrtr

courts

rral id

a
of

have not

received

second cause of

mnnaw hari and receiwed must be dismissed.

the

consequently,

merit.
has

because
fnr

that

Claim

where

efaf'rf/-]ri

action

lrz

for

III.
For

dismiss

the

reasons

(doc. no.

EMrER .IUDGMENTin

and deadlines,

motions
c{9 cr Jr.tD

u

motion

to

GRAMTED. The Cl-erk is

directed

to

of

herein,

Defendant,

TERMINATE all-

pending

and CLOSE t.he

nr^i-r.l€9

ORDER ENTERED at
'1u9Lr-u,

Defendant's

stated

18) is
favor

CONCLUSTON

Augusta,

Georgia,

,nr"fu ",

4wrJ

DI STRI CT

2r