Fox v. Government of the District of Columbia
851 F. Supp. 2d 20
D.D.C.2012Background
- Mr. Fox was arrested for disorderly conduct after a dispute with MPD officers in a no-parking zone and held in custody.
- Arrestees can elect post-and-forfeit: pay collateral to resolve the charge without a court hearing, not an admission of guilt, but with an arrest record.
- Fox signed the post-and-forfeit notice and paid $35; he was released within hours and did not pursue a set-aside motion within 90 days.
- Counts 4-8 of the first amended complaint sue the District of Columbia for constitutional challenges to post-and-forfeit under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments as a class action.
- DC moved to dismiss Counts 4-8 for lack of standing and failure to state a claim; court granted in part and denied in part leave to amend.
- Court held Counts 4-8 fail; allowed two new counts (4A and 9) to proceed, while Counts 5-8 were deemed futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-and-forfeit violates due process on its face | Fox argues the policy arbitrarily deprives money and liberty. | DC contends it is a reasonable, voluntary, non-conviction remedy with valid aims. | Not facially unconstitutional; claims fail on merits. |
| Whether post-and-forfeit satisfies procedural due process | Procedural protections are inadequate given no immediate counsel access | No pre-deprivation hearing required for minor offenses; ninety-day remedy window exists. | Procedural due process satisfied; no violation under Mathews/Medina analysis. |
| Whether Fox has standing to pursue injunctive/class relief against the District | Seeks ongoing injunctive relief for class and expungement relief. | Injunctive relief requires real and immediate future injury; here isn’t clearly shown. | Standing present for some forms of relief; merits proceed to dismissal analysis, then federal relief limited by mootness concerns. |
| Whether Counts 7 and 8 (Sixth/Eighth Amendments) are viable | Sixth right to counsel and Eighth bail rights violated by post-and-forfeit. | No attachment of counsel/bail rights at time of post-and-forfeit; not actionable. | Counts 7 and 8 conceded and dismissed. |
| Whether amendment of the complaint to add Counts 4A and 9 is proper | New claims should be allowed to cure deficiencies. | Further amendments would be futile and prejudicial. | Counts 4A and 9 permitted; Counts 5-8 amendments denied as futile. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (flexible due process test balancing interests and burdens)
- Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 (U.S. 1992) (state criminal procedure uses justice-led discretion; limits on compensating pre-procedure actions)
- County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1991) (probable cause/detention timing; pretrial procedures)
- Sullivan v. Murphy, 478 F.2d 938 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (exhaustion of state remedies; access to relief defenses)
- Lyons v. City of Los Angeles, 461 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1983) (standing for injunctive relief requires real and immediate threat)
- Huthnance v. District of Columbia, 793 F. Supp. 2d 183 (D.D.C. 2011) (standing and prior arrest challenges in DC context)
- Gustave-Schmidt v. Chao, 226 F. Supp. 2d 191 (D.D.C. 2002) (incorporation of documents by reference in complaint)
- Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (U.S. 1996) (taking property under government authority; compensation principles)