Booth v. Galveston County et al

Filing 279

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS & PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 267 is APPROVED AND ADOPTED, as modified in its entirety as the holding of the Court. The parties Objections to Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation.(Dkts.) 272275 are OVERRULED; The Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. 3-1] is DENIED; The 205 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED.(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(ltrevino, 3)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
AARON BOOTH
Plaintiff.
VS.
GALVESTON COUNTY, ET AL.
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

September 11, 2019
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18–CV–00104

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S MEMORANDUM AND
RECOMMENDATION & PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Pending before the Court is the Memorandum and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Andrew Edison. Dkt. 267.
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This case was referred to Judge Edison

See Dkt. 102.

Pending before Judge Edison was

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 3-1) and Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Inunction [sic] Requiring Counsel at Initial Bail Hearings (Dkt. 205).
All parties filed Objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation. See Dkts.
272–275. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court is required to “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made.” After conducting this de
novo review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

The Court has carefully considered the entire preliminary injunction record, including
the legal briefing, exhibits, transcript of the preliminary injunction hearing, the arguments of
the parties, the Memorandum and Recommendation, and the objections.
Plaintiff Aaron Booth contends that the Memorandum and Recommendation fails to
address his substantive due process argument and denies his procedural due process
argument without articulating the applicable legal standard. Assuming Booth is correct, the
undersigned has carefully reviewed the preliminary injunction record and, nonetheless, finds
that Booth has failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on his
substantive due process and procedural due process claims. Booth also contends that Judge
Edison failed to properly analyze whether Galveston County has demonstrated voluntary
cessation of alleged unconstitutional policies. The Court disagrees. The Memorandum and
Recommendation plainly and unambiguously holds that Galveston County has made
significant post-filing revisions to its bail procedures which appear permanent in nature. To
the extent there is any uncertainty, the Court holds that Galveston County has met its burden
to demonstrate that the conduct challenged at the outset of this case will not recur.
The Court notes that the District Attorney argues in his objections that the proposed
injunction “must be clarified to state it does not apply to municipal magistrations conducted
outside of Galveston County jail, or to warrant arrests.” Dkt. 274 at 15. In issuing the
Preliminary Injunction, the Court modifies Judge Edison’s proposed injunction to provide
clarity as requested by the District Attorney.
The Court ACCEPTS Judge Edison’s Memorandum and Recommendation and
ADOPTS it, as modified by this order, as the opinion of the Court. It is therefore
ORDERED that:
2

(1)

Judge Edison’s Memorandum and Recommendation (Dkt. 267) is
APPROVED AND ADOPTED, as modified, in its entirety as the holding of
the Court;

(2)

The parties’ Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(Dkts. 272–275) are OVERRULED;

(3)

The Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 3-1) is DENIED;

(4)

The Motion for Preliminary Inunction [sic] Requiring Counsel at Initial Bail
Hearings (Dkt. 205) is GRANTED;

(5)

The following Preliminary Injunction is issued:

Galveston County must provide any indigent felony arrestee with
counsel to represent the arrestee at the initial hearing concerning conditions of
pretrial release. This does not apply, however, to municipal magistrations
conducted outside of Galveston County jail, or to warrant arrests.

The Court does not order injunctive relief against the magistrates or the
District Attorney. The Court does not order injunctive relief against the District
Court Judges in their judicial capacities, but rather does so in their policymaking
capacities.

This injunction will expire on the entry of a final judgment in this case,
unless the Court orders otherwise. Any party may seek modification of the
injunction by a written motion served on all counsel and on a showing of good
cause.

In issuing this injunction, the Court exercises its discretion under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) to waive the bond requirement. As
explained in ODonnell v. Harris Cty., 251 F. Supp. 3d 1052, 1159–60 (S.D. Tex.
2017) and Daves v. Dallas Cty., 341 F. Supp. 3d 688, 697–98 (N.D. Tex. 2018),
waiving the bond requirement is appropriate because Plaintiff is indigent and has
brought suit to enforce his constitutional rights.

It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this day 11th day of September, 2019.
___________________________________
George C. Hanks Jr.
United States District Judge
3