Attorney at Law Magazine- Daves v. Dallas County Ends Federal Micromanagement of Ongoing State Criminal Cases

U.S. Supreme Court Denied Cert. Allowing Fifth Circuit to End Federal Micromanagement of Ongoing State Criminal Cases
by Ken W. Good

In the labyrinth of legal battles waged in the expansive landscape of Texas, the saga of Daves v. Dallas County unfolded with deceptive simplicity. Initially framed as a straightforward confrontation between plaintiffs and the legal machinery of Dallas County, this saga eventually evolved into a convoluted odyssey involving constitutional interpretations, initial rulings that were later reversed and other judicial intricacies. What was supposed to be simple turned out to be anything but.

To understand this litigation, a review must go all the way back to 2016. A group of plaintiffs brought suit against misdemeanor judges, the Harris County sheriff and Harris County in ODonnell v. Harris County, alleging violations of due process and equal protection. By 2017, Judge Lee Rosenthal of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction against the defendants. She ruled that use of a bail schedule to set bail for misdemeanor defendants in Harris County was a breach of due process when defendants lacked the opportunity to request a deviation from the scheduled bail amount. While judges are usually considered state actors and exempt from litigation pursuant to 42 USC §1983, Judge Rosenthal held that the misdemeanor judges became county policy makers when they created a standing order bail schedule, and therefore, could be sued.

February 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed large portions of Judge Rosenthal’s memorandum opinion, but reversed the preliminary injunction itself as overly broad. The reversal dealt with whether the preliminary injunction could impose substantive remedies when the trial court only found procedural defects.

Therefore, in 2018, another group of plaintiffs (using the same attorneys as the plaintiffs in ODonnell) filed suit in Dallas federal court against misdemeanor and felony judges, magistrate judges, Dallas County and the Dallas County sheriff. The plaintiffs claimed procedural due process and equal protection violations similar to those alleged in ODonnell, asserting that the utilization of a bail schedule was improper. At its heart, the plaintiffs in Daves v. Dallas County sought to extend the ruling against the misdemeanor judges in ODonnell to both misdemeanor and felony judges. In September 2018, the federal court in Daves agreed with the plaintiffs. The court extended the ruling in ODonnell to the felony judges and entered a preliminary injunction similar to the one issued by Judge Rosenthal. The defendants appealed, and subsequently, the issue returned once again to the Fifth Circuit for review.

* * * *

The story continues on Attorney At Law Magazine.  To see more CLICK HERE.

Other Articles-
April 19, 2023-  The Second Shoe Drops in Daves II: Daves v. Dallas County  CLICK HERE

January 27, 2022-  The Plaintiffs Suffer Rug Burns:  Daves v. Dallas County  CLICK HERE. Daves I

February 1, 2021- Fifth Circuit Shines Light on Road to Texas Bail Reform CLICK HERE. Panel Decision

To find more information regarding Bail Reform/Criminal Justice Reform issues visit our Bail 101 page by CLICKING HERE.




Comments

Most Read Posts Over The Last 30 Days

The Bail Post Episode No. 54: The Causes of Crime and How to Deter It With Guest Dr. Jennifer Wooldridge

Good People, Good Food, Good Conversation and Good Competition- PBT's Upcoming 2024 Spring Fling

Manipulating Crime Numbers, Houston Edition- Investigation of 264,000 Cases Suspended for a "Lack of Personnel"

New Members 4/1/2024

Studies Demonstrate Recidivism Rates Increase Using Simple Release

Stories by Topic:

Show more