IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JERRY COPELAND, JOHN WHITT, )
and JAMES DUTTON, )
on behalf of themselves and a class )
of those similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) No. 3:20-cv-154
)
WABASH COUNTY, INDIANA; and the )
WABASH COUNTY SHERIFF, in his official )
capacity, )
) COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
Defendants. )
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Introduction
1. The Wabash County Jail (“the Jail”) is old, overcrowded, and understaffed, and as a result
it is a place where violence between prisoners is common and dangerous conditions prevail. The
conditions in the Jail therefore violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution. Declaratory and injunctive relief should be issued to address and remedy the Jail’s
systemic problems.
Jurisdiction, venue, and cause of action
2. This Court has jurisdiction of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
3. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
4. Declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and by Rule 57 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
5. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation, under color
USDC IN/ND case 3:20-cv-00154 document 1 filed 02/19/20 page 1 of 11
[2]
of state law, of rights secured by the United States Constitution.
Southern District
John Doe 1 2 and 3
on behalf of themselves and a class )
of those similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiffs, ) )
v. ) No. ----------
Johnson County and Bob.
Introduction:
Jane Doe is attempting to quash a warrant and set her case for a hearing.
She sent her counsel to make a request for this, either as a matter of professional courtesy to counsel, which was refused, or by court order. The court ruled it was too busy to entertain an oral motion, and may have suggested a written motion. This was reasonable, and the court has wide discretion.
At the entrance to the courtroom was a security desk staffed by Bob. At first Bob was friendly and helpful, and by the end he was again, but there was a middle period where he was screaming, pointing his finger and such. I occasionally trigger that sort of reaction from civil servants, and was unphased. He stated, twice, "You're not a lawyer!". I pointed out to Bob that this was defamatory. The prosecutor confirmed that I am indeed a lawyer, and Bob settled down. There may or may not have existed a video of the incident. If so, retain it; destruction of the file would be a separate tort. ______.
The specifics of what made him flip out were that when he told me I could not bring in my laptop or my phone, I responded by asking for a copy of the court order establishing the policy. Instead of responding civilly to a reasonable and legal request, he became unhinged. He did not assault or physically threaten me, but he seemed armed and dangerous, and impeded my path to the courtroom.
But as I told him, this sounds like defamation. I personally do not choose to sue Bob for defamation.
My client, on the other hand, has no good reason not to. Under Article I section 12, she has a right to open courts. This was violated by Bob's temper tantrum.
The law does not strain at a gnat, and normally I do not sue when merely defamed. Here the point is to show the prosecutor that actions have consequences, and if she chooses, as she is free to do, to fail to extend professional courtesy, I am in the process of joining the Johnson County bar association and will be filing lawsuits on a monthly basis until she gets the point. Some will be big and major, seeking to expose widespread corruption, while others are small and petty, such as this one.
Parties:
Jane Doe is a former inmate of Johnson County. She has served her sentence of _ days. She has paid thousands in costs and fees. She has been homeless and broke. She is unwilling to go into Johnson County, much less ever be locked up there. When she began to describe conditions there, I wondered if she were paranoid or histrionic or exagerating but later I met Bob, screaming to me, lying about me to his cowurkers, in full public view.
During law school 30 years ago, I participated in a clinic for battered women. Many of the symptoms are present in her case. I also grew up in a violent home.
I am not seeking to re-open her case, and I do not practice any criminal law. I had been expecting her to get in touch with her public defender to be represented at the hearing I requested. But at a quick glance it appears she was a used a drug mule, was afraid to testify, and was overcharged in retaliation for using her 5th amendment rights. Classic blaming the victim, an outdated policy that promotes trafficking and exploitation of women. A competent and ethical prosecutor should be aware that there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to her mental state, other than her coerced plea agreement. Her crime was a status offense, and there was I think no allegation of a victim other than herself.
Some prosecutors take the high road, and decline to take cases lacking the reasonable doubt standard. Others, aware that prosecutorial immunity protects a wide range of conduct, use probable cause to put someone in jail, which is an inherently coercive structure,
It does not appear that she was effectively represented, in that she pled to the same offense she was charged with, and received an unusually harsh sentence. It is now ironic that the outstanding balance the state refuses to let her pay is largely for the fees for that possibly ineffective counsel. However, I had Doe little more than skim the docket, anbd it may have been less simple.
In the several years since she was locked up without a trial, much has changed in indiana law. In Timbs v. Indiana, the Supreme Court for the first time incorporated the excessive fine clause. Now, fines or fees must be reasonable. When, as here, the fines are an undue burden, they violate the letter and spirit of Timbs. It is within the court's discretion to dismiss these fines, and I so move.
Now,
WABASH COUNTY, INDIANA; and the )
WABASH COUNTY SHERIFF, in his official )
capacity, )
)
COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION Defendants. ) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Johnny Magdaleno
RSS Track this Docket