268 F. Supp. 3d 992
W.D. Mo.2017Background
- Plaintiffs filed a putative class action seeking prospective declaratory and injunctive relief challenging Missouri’s State Public Defender (MSPD) system as constitutionally inadequate due to chronic underfunding, excessive caseloads, and resulting deficient representation at critical stages (arraignments, bond hearings, investigations, plea advice, juvenile representation).
- MSPD statistics and multiple independent studies (ABA, Sixth Amendment Center, NJDC, Spangenberg Group, DOJ) show Missouri ranks near bottom in per-capita indigent defense funding, with MSPD attorneys often unable to provide the hours the ABA study deems minimally necessary.
- Plaintiffs allege systemic harms via detailed individual examples (Church, Dalton, Samuels, Bowman, Richman) showing long pretrial detention, late or fleeting attorney contact, missed bond advocacy, inadequate investigation, and juvenile representation gaps.
- Defendants (State of Missouri and Governor Greitens) moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing sovereign immunity, lack of standing/justiciability, legislative immunity for the Governor, alternative remedies (post-conviction and habeas), and insufficient causal connection to the Governor.
- The Court accepted Plaintiffs’ factual allegations for the motion-to-dismiss posture and ruled: dismissed Plaintiff Church for lack of standing; denied dismissal as to the other named plaintiffs and most claims; dismissed Count V (statutory juvenile/criminal code claims) as to Gov. Greitens but not as to the State.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sovereign immunity (State) | Missouri may be enjoined for ongoing constitutional violations; state sovereign immunity does not bar equitable relief under Missouri law (Wyman). | The State contends sovereign immunity bars suit absent clear waiver; §537.600 limits waiver to damages. | State is not entitled to sovereign immunity here; equitable relief against Missouri is permitted. |
| Ex parte Young / Governor as proper defendant | Governor has sufficient connection (withholds appropriated funds, appoints MSPD Commission members, executes laws) and can be enjoined for prospective relief. | Governor lacks enforcement connection; sovereign/legislative immunity shields him. | Governor Greitens plausibly falls within Ex parte Young; claims against him may proceed. |
| Standing / injury-in-fact | Systemic deficiencies cause imminent and ongoing injuries (pretrial detention, inability to participate in defense); named plaintiffs (except Church) face ongoing harms. | Plaintiffs lack standing: Church has no ongoing prosecution; others cannot show Strickland-style prejudice without conviction. | Church lacks standing; Dalton, Samuels, Bowman, Richman have Article III standing to seek systemic prospective relief. |
| Legislative immunity & redressability | Prospective injunctive relief and court-supervised remedial plan can redress constitutional violations without ordering specific appropriations. | Governor’s budgetary/legislative acts are protected by absolute legislative immunity; Court cannot force funding increases. | Legislative immunity not resolved at dismissal stage; claims against Governor not barred now (but relief integral to legislative acts could be restricted later). |
Key Cases Cited
- Rothgery v. Gillespie County, Texas, 554 U.S. 191 (2008) (right to counsel attaches at initial appearance and to critical stages)
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) (counsel required at post-arraignment identification procedures)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (Eleventh Amendment and scope of state immunity under §1983)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (allows prospective injunctive relief against state officers for ongoing federal law violations)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective-assistance prejudice in individual cases)
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (state obligation to provide counsel to indigent criminal defendants)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (threatened future injury must be certainly impending for standing)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements and burdens)