Cain et al v. New Orleans City et al

Filing 124

ORDER AND REASONS denying 108 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 5/11/16. (jjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALANA CAIN, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-4479

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL.

SECTION: R(2)

ORDER AND REASONS
Named plaintiffs Alana Cain, Ashton Brown, Reynaud Variste,
Reynajia Variste, Thaddeus Long, and Vanessa Maxwell filed this civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking to declare the manner in which the
Orleans Parish Criminal District Court collects post-judgment court costs
from indigent debtors unconstitutional. According to plaintiffs, the Criminal
District Court and other, related actors, maintain a policy of jailing criminal
defendants who fail to pay their court costs solely because of their indigence.1
The “judicial defendants” now ask the Court to dismiss plaintiffs’ Due
Process claims for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).2 Defendants argue that their imposition of court costs
on state-court criminal defendants does not violate the Due Process Clause

See generally R. Doc. 7 (Plaintiffs’ First Amended Class Action
Complaint).

1

R. Doc. 108. The “judicial defendants” are the Orleans Parish
Criminal District Court, its thirteen judges, and the judicial administrator.
2

because plaintiffs did not allege that any of the Criminal District Court judges
was "tempted to forget the burden of proof" required for conviction during
the named plaintiffs’ substantive criminal prosecutions.
As the Court has observed, plaintiffs do not complain about
defendants’ imposing court costs as part of the sentences for state-court
criminal defendants.3 Plaintiffs challenge the manner in which defendants
collect court costs, after the costs are validly imposed, from indigent
defendants who fail to pay. Thus, defendants’ arguments—that the judges’
ability to assess court costs against convicted defendants does not
unconstitutionally

infringe

upon

the

fairness

of

the

defendants’

prosecutions—miss the point, which defendants concede in their reply brief. 4
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion.

11th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _______ day of May, 2016.

___________________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

See generally R. Doc. 109; R. Doc. 111; R. Doc. 119.

4

R. Doc. 118 at 2 n.2.