Helman v. Barnett's Bail Bonds, Inc.
3:16-cv-00560
N.D. Ind.Nov 20, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Atta Belle Helman and Larry Helman are survivors/administrators of Gary Helman, who was shot and killed during a capture attempt by three bounty hunters (Tadd Martin, Daniel Foster, Michael Thomas) retained by Barnett’s Bail Bonds after Gary allegedly violated bail conditions.
- Plaintiffs allege the bounty hunters coordinated with journalist Stacy Staley to locate Gary, who was then confronted in his (or his mother’s) home; a gunfight ensued, leaving Gary dead and others wounded.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Counts I, II, III, V) for constitutional violations, plus a state-law breach of contract and Deceptive Business Practices Act claim (Count VI); Count IV (§ 1985 conspiracy) was voluntarily dismissed.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing they are private actors not acting under color of state law; plaintiffs amended their complaint after initial motions but expressly alleged that law enforcement warned the bounty hunters to "stand down" and did not assist.
- The court found the amended complaint failed to plead facts showing state action or that defendants acted jointly with or under the authority/encouragement of the state, and dismissed the § 1983 claims with prejudice; the state-law claim was dismissed without prejudice for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants acted under color of state law for § 1983 | Bounty hunters/bail agents exercised legal authority to apprehend bail-jumper and thus their conduct is attributable to the state | Defendants are private actors; no concerted action with or delegation by police; law enforcement discouraged the plan | Dismissed — plaintiffs failed to plead state action; § 1983 claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether acquiescence/pattern of deference by police could create state action | Discovery might show a pattern/practice of law enforcement deferring to bondsmen, creating a state nexus | Mere acquiescence or pattern of deference is legally insufficient to impute state action absent coercion or joint participation | Rejected — mere acquiescence is insufficient; alleged police warnings defeat the claim |
| Whether bail/bondsman functions constitute a "public function" or state delegation | Bail enforcement is a public-related function; thus bondsmen could be state actors in some instances | Historical and precedent law treat bail recapture as private right; not an exclusive state function; courts require close nexus | Rejected — court concluded bail enforcement here was private and not a delegated state power |
| Jurisdiction over state-law claims after federal claims dismissed | Plaintiffs seek to keep Count VI in federal court | Defendants argue court should dismiss supplemental claim if federal claims are gone | Court declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed Count VI without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bissessur v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599 (7th Cir.) (motion-to-dismiss plausibility standard explanation)
- Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400 (7th Cir.) (pleading must do more than suggest speculative relief)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (state-action "close nexus" principle)
- Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (state acquiescence is insufficient to create state action)
- American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (state-action analysis begins with specific challenged conduct)
- Rodriquez v. Plymouth Ambulance Service, 577 F.3d 816 (7th Cir.) (private parties liable under § 1983 only when acting under color of law)
- Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police of Chicago Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811 (7th Cir.) (fact-specific state-action inquiry)
- Taylor v. Tainter, 83 U.S. 366 (bail bondsman historical authority to recapture principal)
- Fitzpatrick v. Williams, 46 F.2d 40 (5th Cir.) (bail recapture characterized as private right)
- Wade v. Byles, 83 F.3d 902 (7th Cir.) (performing a public-serving function does not automatically create state action)