446 F.Supp.3d 282
M.D. Tenn.2020Background
- The Nashville Community Bail Fund (NCBF) is a charitable organization that posts cash bail for indigent pretrial detainees using a revolving donated fund; it reclaims refunds after cases conclude to reuse the funds.
- Tennessee law (Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-11-121) and the Twentieth Judicial District Local Rule 10(B) allow or notify that cash bond deposits may be applied to fines, costs, taxes, or restitution; the Criminal Court Clerk’s Office (represented by Howard Gentry) has interpreted and applied this to third-party deposits including NCBF’s.
- The Twentieth Judicial District initially exempted NCBF from garnishment by en banc order in April 2016, but rescinded that exemption in May 2019 and denied NCBF’s petition to reinstate it in August 2019; Clerk’s Office thereafter required depositors to sign an acknowledgment that bonds could be applied to debts.
- NCBF sued Clerk Howard Gentry in his official capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the garnishment policy (as applied to NCBF) violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; it also moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement against NCBF’s deposits.
- Procedurally, the court analyzed (1) whether Rule 5.1 notice to the Tennessee Attorney General was required, (2) adequacy of service on Gentry, (3) whether Gentry is a proper defendant, and (4) whether NCBF met the standard for a preliminary injunction.
- The court concluded Gentry (as Clerk of the Criminal Court) is an arm of the State for Rule 5.1 purposes, service through Metro Legal was adequate, Gentry is an appropriate Ex parte Young defendant for injunctive relief, and granted a preliminary injunction limited to bonds posted by NCBF.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 5.1 / §2403(b) notice to Tennessee AG was required | NCBF: Gentry is a state officer/employee, so state notice not required | Gentry: his role is local/Metro and plaintiffs should notify the state | Court: Clerk’s Office is an arm of the state; no additional state notice required |
| Adequacy of service on Gentry | NCBF: Metro Legal (Cynthia Gross) accepted service for Gentry; service was later perfected | Gentry: service was improper because state officers require service via the AG | Court: Service was adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2)(A); Metro Legal acceptance and later personal service cured issues |
| Appropriateness of Gentry as defendant | NCBF: Gentry enforces the garnishment policy and is a proper official-capacity defendant under Ex parte Young | Gentry: he merely enforces state law; if state actor then different service/defense applies | Court: Enforcing a statute/policy does not bar Ex parte Young relief; Gentry is proper defendant in his official capacity |
| Preliminary injunction on garnishment policy (as to NCBF deposits) | NCBF: automatic garnishment of third-party bonds (NCBF) likely unconstitutional (Eighth/Due Process), and will irreparably harm NCBF’s revolving model and its clients | Gentry: (limited opposition on merits due to representation issues) argued he acts under state law and raised procedural defenses | Court: NCBF showed likelihood of success, irreparable harm, and favorable balance/public interest; granted PI limited to bonds posted by NCBF |
Key Cases Cited
- Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1951) (Eighth Amendment restricts excessive bail)
- Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 (U.S. 1984) (procedural protections required for pretrial detention)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1908) (permits injunctive relief against state officials enforcing unconstitutional laws)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (U.S. 1987) (heightened scrutiny for pretrial detention conditions)
- Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (U.S. 1999) (service of process and waiver principles)
- Pucci v. Nineteenth Dist. Court, 628 F.3d 752 (6th Cir. 2010) (state courts as arms of the state for immunity/identity analysis)
- Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 241 F.3d 800 (6th Cir. 2001) (constitutional violations can constitute irreparable harm for injunctive relief)
- Durham v. Martin, 905 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2018) (suit against clerk as a way to challenge state statute under Ex parte Young)
- McNeil v. Community Probation Services, LLC, 945 F.3d 991 (6th Cir. 2019) (officials enforcing statutes can be Ex parte Young defendants)
- United States v. Rose, 791 F.2d 1477 (11th Cir. 1986) (conditioning bond to satisfy future fines is constitutionally suspect)