Cain et al v. New Orleans City et al, No. 2:2015cv04479 - Document 124 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: 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)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cain et al v. New Orleans City et al Doc. 124 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) ORD ER AN D REASON S 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 m anner in which the Orleans Parish Crim inal District Court collects post-judgm ent court costs from indigent debtors unconstitutional. According to plaintiffs, the Crim inal District Court and other, related actors, m aintain a policy of jailing crim inal defendants who fail to pay their court costs solely because of their indigence. 1 The “judicial defendants” now ask the Court to dism iss plaintiffs’ Due Process claims for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 2 Defendants argue that their im position of court costs on state-court criminal defendants does not violate the Due Process Clause 1 See generally R. Doc. 7 (Plaintiffs’ First Am ended Class Action Com plaint). 2 R. Doc. 10 8. The “judicial defendants” are the Orleans Parish Crim inal District Court, its thirteen judges, and the judicial adm inistrator. Dockets.Justia.com because plaintiffs did not allege that any of the Crim inal District Court judges was "tempted to forget the burden of proof" required for conviction during the nam ed plaintiffs’ substantive crim inal prosecutions. As the Court has observed, plaintiffs do not com plain about defendants’ im posing court costs as part of the sentences for state-court crim inal defendants. 3 Plaintiffs challenge the m anner in which defendants collect court costs, after the costs are validly im posed, 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—m iss the point, which defendants concede in their reply brief. 4 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the m otion. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ 11th _ _ day of May, 20 16. ___ ___________________________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 3 See generally R. Doc. 10 9; R. Doc. 111; R. Doc. 119. 4 R. Doc. 118 at 2 n.2.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
