Chapman et al v. The City of Clanton
Court Docket Sheet

Middle District of Alabama

2:2015-cv-00125 (almd)

ORDER: Before the Court is plaintiffs' {{84}} Motion to strike documents {{80}} -1 through {{80}} -6 or, in the alternative, to stay the motion containing those documents. Defendant concedes that the documents should be struck. See Resp. Mot. to Strike 3, ECF No. {{90}} ("[T]he City of Clanton would concede to the Court striking the Exhibits attached to its Motion to Dismiss.") Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion {{84}} is GRANTED. The documents labeled ECF No. {{80}} -1 through {{80}} -6 shall be struck. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 4/25/2017.

Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 99 Filed 04/25/17 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION CANDICE CHAPMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:15-cv-125 (RCL) V. THE CITY OF CLANTON, etal., Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is plaintiffs' motion [84] to strike documents 80-1 through 80-6 or, in the alternative, to stay the motion containing those documents. Defendant concedes that the documents should be struck. See Resp. Mot. to Strike 3, ECF No. 90 ("[T]he City of Clanton would concede to the Court striking the Exhibits attached to its Motion to Dismiss.") Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion [84] is GRANTED. The documents labeled ECF No. 80-1 through 80-6 shall be struck. IT IS SO ORDERED. R YCE C. LAMBERTH United States District Judge Date:

MEMORANDUM OPINION: This case is one of several before the Court that all contain similar allegations: that Alabama cities attempting to increase municipal budgets were running debtors prisons and implementing policies that adversely impacted indigent residents of those cities. Currently before the Court are motions to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint under FRCP 12(b)(6). Such motions were filed by the City of Clanton, Judicial Correction Services (JCS), and CHC Companies, Inc. These motions will be granted in part and denied in part as further set out in the opinion. Though distinct in certain ways, this case is similar to other cases pending before this Court, most notably McCullough v. City of Montgomery, 2:15-cv-463, and Carter v. City of Montgomery,2:15-cv-555. This memorandum opinion should be read in conjunction with the opinions issued in those cases, as the issues overlap and Court will not repeat its analysis in this memorandum opinion. The memorandum opinions in those cases can be found at docket entry 131 in McCullough and docket entry 97 in Carter. Signed by Honorable Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 4/25/2017.

Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 100 Filed 04/25/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION _______________________________________) CANDICE CHAPMAN, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) Case No. 2:15-cv-125 (RCL)) THE CITY OF CLANTON, et al.,)) Defendants.) _______________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPINION This case is one of several before the Court that all contain similar allegations: that Alabama cities attempting to increase municipal budgets were running debtor’s prisons and implementing policies that adversely impacted indigent residents of those cities. Currently before the Court are motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Such motions were filed by the City of Clanton, Judicial Correction Services (JCS), and CHC Companies, Inc. These motions will be granted in part and denied in part. Though distinct in certain ways, this case is similar to other cases pending before this Court, most notably McCullough v. City of Montgomery, 2:15-cv-463, and Carter v. City of Montgomery, 2:15-cv-555. This memorandum opinion should be read in conjunction with the opinions issued in those cases, as the issues overlap and Court will not repeat its analysis in this memorandum opinion. The memorandum opinions in those cases can be found at docket entry 131 in McCullough and docket entry 97 in Carter. 1 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 100 Filed 04/25/17 Page 2 of 10 I. Background Like Carter and McCullough, this case concerns the policies and practices of an Alabama City that contracted with a private probation company, JCS, which is alleged to have denied indigent defendants a host of rights. Specifically, they allege that the city of Clanton signed a contract with JCS that nominally allowed JCS to run probation services. JCS ran on an "offender funded" model, where they would charge people on probation set-up as well as monthly fees to remain on probation. When individuals were arrested for minor crimes and unable to pay fees, they were automatically placed into JCS probation and made monthly payments. If individuals were unable to pay, their fees were converted to jail time with durations tied to the amounts owed. For example, one plaintiff’s fine of $1,415 was converted into 28.3 days in jail—a rate of $50 a day. Another plaintiff was given 21.12 days. Plaintiffs contend this was all done without any indigency determinations being made and without access to counsel. They further argue that the entire contract between the City and JCS is unlawful. II. Legal Standards A motion to dismiss is appropriate when the complaint fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Such a failure occurs when the complaint is so factually deficient that the plaintiff’s claim for relief is not plausible on its face. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Though facts in a complaint need not be detailed, Rule 8 "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The Court must accept all factual statements as true when 2 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 100 Filed 04/25/17 Page 3 of 10 deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Id. at 678. However, conclusory legal allegations devoid of any factual support do not enjoy the same presumption of truth. Id. at 679. "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. This is not a high bar however, as plaintiffs need only plead facts sufficient to "nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible." Id. at 547. III. Counts This case contains eleven counts. The first is for denial of due process by the City of Clanton. The second is for denial of due process by JCS. The third and fourth counts are for violations of the fourth amendment by Clanton and JCS, respectively. Counts five and six allege violations of the sixth amendment by the City and JCS. Counts seven and eight allege violations of the eighth amendment. The ninth and tenth counts are for violations of equal protection by Clanton and JCS. The final count, eleven, is for declaratory and injunctive relief against both JCS and Clanton. 1. Violations by the City of Clanton The City spends the bulk of their motion to dismiss arguing that they are not responsible for the actions of JCS or any actions taken by the Clanton Municipal Court. In this way, the City’s argument is incredibly similar to that made by the City of Montgomery in Carter and McCullough. Here, they argue that because the municipal court is an arm of the State, not the City, it is impossible for the City to be liable for its actions. City Mot. Dismiss 26, ECF No. 80. Moreover, they claim the alleged violations of plaintiffs’ rights arise from the municipal court, not the City. Id. at 42-43. 3 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 100 Filed 04/25/17 Page 4 of 10 With respect to liability tied to the City contracting with JCS, the City claims that it hired JCS for the municipal court, and their actions are thus not attributable to the City, but rather the municipal court. Id. at 45-46. The City’s arguments apply to all the substantive counts against them in the complaint. Plaintiffs respond by alleging that the conduct in question is not limited to the municipal court, but involves a medley of city officials including clerks, the treasurer, and police. Resp. City’s Mot Dismiss 6, ECF No. 85. To be more precise, the allegations include a "joint scheme" between JCS and the City that included, but was not limited to, actions occurring in or associated with the municipal courts. Id. The City was the entity that decided to use JCS, signing the contract that allowed for the payment system and policies allegedly undertaken by JCS. Am. Comp. ¶ 33, ECF No. 74. The City allegedly allowed JCS employees to carry badges. Id. at ¶ 34. Were that insufficient, the complaint alleges "[t]his public ruse was maintained by Clanton and JCS for purposes of imposing and collecting fines and costs from citizens." Id. at ¶ 35. That is, plaintiffs allege not merely that the City is liable due to JCS’s actions or the behavior of the municipal court, but also because the City itself was a party to a "ruse" designed to increase revenue. At this stage of the proceedings, this allegation is sufficient to state a claim. While the precise nature of the allegations vary by count, the underlying allegation is that the City and JCS together created a series of policies and practices designed to increase revenue. Plaintiffs here allege these policies or practices harmed them in a number of distinct ways, including violations of several constitutional rights. It is not necessary to examine the details of JCS or the municipal court’s relationship to the City, as the plaintiffs allege the City acted in concert with 4 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 100 Filed 04/25/17 Page 5 of 10 those other entities in creating the alleged violations. See also id. at ¶ 242 (discussing the "joint and inextricably interwoven" policies of the City and JCS). 2. Violations by JCS At the core of the alleged violation of plaintiffs’ rights are that they were forced onto JCS "probation" when they couldn’t afford to pay fines. On probation, they were charged monthly fees and, if they could not pay, their fine was converted into a jail sentence. This was done without access to counsel or any indigency determinations being made. JCS argues that while indigency determinations may not have been made, and regardless of whether particular municipal court orders were proper, JCS had no duty to address many of the issues plaintiffs raise. On the contrary, JCS asserts the municipal court was responsible for many of the actions (or inaction) in question, relieving JCS of liability. JCS Mot. Dismiss14-18, ECF No. 86. Much like the City pointing to JCS and the municipal courts, JCS points to the municipal courts and the City as the entities responsible for the actions in question. While JCS distinguishes between counts in a way the City does not, the core issue is the same across the counts. For example, when discussing violations of due process, JCS maintains it had no duty or authority to inquire into indigency, the municipal court did. JCS Mot. Dismiss 13-14. With respect to the fourth amendment, JCS maintains that the City, not JCS, issued the warrants in question and made arrests, id. at 20-21, and that the municipal court, not JCS, determined who would be placed on probation, id at 19-20. As with the City, JCS fails to fully engage with the allegations levied against them. Plaintiffs maintain that the City and JCS’s policies were "joint and inextricably interwoven," Am. Comp. at ¶ 242, and were "designed and sold to various cities" by JCS, Resp. JCS Mot. Dismiss 5 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 100 Filed 04/25/17 Page 6 of 10 5, ECF No. 91. That is, plaintiffs are alleging JCS and the City were acting pursuant to a "joint scheme." Id. at 5. Plaintiffs allegations are not that things happened in some passive sense and they now seek the party liable, but rather that JCS and others actively planned to make things happened in pursuit of profits. As the "things" in the previous sentence are constitutional violations, they seek to hold the creators of the "scheme" of "joint and inextricably interwoven" policies—including JCS—accountable for their creation. As with any case, plaintiffs’ allegations or theory could turn out to be inaccurate. However, at this stage of the proceedings, where plaintiffs factual claims are accepted as true, plaintiffs make a broad claim that JCS is responsible, at least in part, for the policies in question as they were a joint participant in their creation. This Court has already addressed in some detail various violations similar or identical to the ones present in this case, including in the Carter and McCullough memorandum opinions. The Court will not repeat its analysis here, but notes that the allegations include clear violations of constitutional rights, including jailing individuals for the inability to pay fines without inquiring as to their indigency and denying individuals counsel before incarcerating them. Additionally, as noted in a prior memorandum opinion, the Court will not analyze every argument advanced by JCS. This is because the same arguments have been made, and rejected, in nearly identical circumstances. See Higginbotham v. Judicial Corrections Servs., Inc., No. CV-13-BE-740-S, 2014 WL 507448, at *1 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 6, 2014) (noting that the City and JCS advanced arguments that had already been rejected in a similar case, including the City’s authority, quasi-judicial immunity, and the Rooker Feldman doctrine). 6 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 100 Filed 04/25/17 Page 7 of 10 3. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Plaintiffs concede their claim for declaratory and injunctive relief is due to be dismissed as to the City given the previous settlement between the parties. Order Granting Joint Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 24. While plaintiffs contend that their request for declaratory and injunctive relief is aimed at both JCS and Clanton, and should not be dismissed with respect to JCS, the text of the count is very much focused on Clanton, with only passing mentions of JCS. In other memorandum opinions this Court has noted that cases of this type may allow for declaratory and injunctive relief even when the city in question is no longer contracting with JCS. See McCullough. This is because of the possibility that the allegations in question are capable of repetition while evading review. However, in this case plaintiffs have settled with the City and it is not clear what portion of their count would apply to JCS while not simultaneously be in contravention of the settlement agreement between the parties. See Am. Comp. ¶¶ 379-399 (requesting that the Court "declare that Clanton had no authority to contractually bind their municipal court," "declare the actions of Clanton under this contract to be unconstitutional," and "enjoin the actions of Clanton identified herein," while only occasionally referencing JCS). Given the previous settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and the City, the language of this count being clearly directed to the City, and the fact that no party contests JCS’s representation that the contract between the City and JCS has been canceled and JCS does not do business in Alabama, the Court finds that count eleven is due to be dismissed as to JCS as well as the City. 7 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 100 Filed 04/25/17 Page 8 of 10 4. CHCC’s Motion to Dismiss and Statute of Limitations As they have done in other cases, defendant CHC Companies, Inc. (CHCC) filed a motion to dismiss. Here they articulate that the correct legal names for the companies in question are CHC Companies, LLC (CHC Co.) and Correct Care Solutions, LLC (CCS, LLC). 1 CHCC Mot. Dismiss 1, ECF No. 82-1. In addition to the general types of arguments made by JCS, CHCC also argues that there are no direct claims against CHCC and that adding them as a party runs afoul of the statute of limitations in this case. To the extent that CHCC is arguing that it is not liable given its distinct corporate structure, the Court has already addressed a nearly identical argument in Carter. Carter, Mem. Op. 6-7, 2:15-cv-555. The same reasoning there, also raised by plaintiffs here, applies in this case. However, CHCC also ties its argument to the statute of limitations, an argument also advanced by JCS. CHCC and JCS argue that at least some of the plaintiffs did not raise their claims in a timely manner, as the amended complaint was not docketed until December 2016 and some of events described concluded in mid-2014. As an initial matter, the Court notes that the statute of limitations was tolled when plaintiffs filed for leave to amend in April 2016—not when this Court granted leave to amend in December 2016. See Rademaker v. ED Flynn Export Co., 17 F. 2d 15, 17 (5th Cir. 1927) ("[W]e think the better rule, supported by the weight of authority, is that an application for leave to amend, as full and comprehensive as this one is in its averment of facts, stands in the place of an actual amendment."). Additionally, while defendants argue that some of the events in question would still be outside the statute of limitations, defendants do not address the doctrine of continuing 1 For the purposes of this memorandum opinions, all of these entities are being referred to as CHCC. 8 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 100 Filed 04/25/17 Page 9 of 10 violations. Though addressing discrimination, the Court finds the Circuit’s language in Perez v. Laredo Junior Coll., 706 F.2d 731, 733–34 (5th Cir. 1983), to be informative: If... the statutory violation does not occur at a single moment but in a series of separate acts and if the same alleged violation was committed at the time of each act, then the limitations period begins anew with each violation and only those violations preceding the filing of the complaint by the full limitations period are foreclosed. Similarly, if the statutory violation occurs as a result of a continuing policy, itself illegal, then the statute does not foreclose an action aimed at the company’s enforcement of the policy within the limitations period. As the Court understands this complaint, it addresses both JCS/CHCC policy and also repeated acts by JCS/CHCC. That is, it is not merely the first payment that a plaintiff had to pay to JCS, the allegation is that each payment over the course of the "probation" period was improper. Moreover, and contrary to defendants’ representations, plaintiffs appear to allege violations within the statute of limitations. For example, in CHCC’s own motion they note that Candice Chapman was arrested, assessed fines, placed on probation, and jailed, between May and October 2014. CHCC Mot. Dismiss 8-9. Likewise, Deangelo Barnett allegedly had his fine converted into jail time in June 2014 and Tracy Dubose states she was making payments to JCS until June 2014. Id. at 9-10; Am. Comp. ¶ 189. Accordingly, plaintiffs state a claim against CHCC. IV. Conclusion Plaintiffs in this case allege a series of practices and policies that deprived them of their rights or visited unique harms upon them due to their indigency. While the complaint spans some 400 paragraphs and there is extensive briefing on the nature of the Alabama state court system and its relationship to Clanton’s municipal court, the underlying issue is one of deep importance. 9

ORDER: Upon consideration of defendants' motions {{79}}, {{82}}, {{86}} to dismiss the amended complaint, the supporting memoranda of points and authorities, the oppositions and replies thereto, the motions hearing, and the entire record herein, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants' motions be, and hereby are, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. As stated in the memorandum opinion issued on this date, defendants' motions are GRANTED with respect to count eleven. Count eleven is hereby dismissed. Defendants' motions are DENIED with respect to the remaining claims. Signed by Honorable Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 4/25/2017.

Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 101 Filed 04/25/17 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION CANDICE CHAPMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, V. Case No. 2:15-cv-125 (RCL) THE CITY OF CLANTON, et al., Defendants. ORDER Upon consideration defendants' motions [79, 82, 86] to dismiss the amended complaint, the supporting memoranda of points and authorities, the oppositions and replies thereto, the motions hearing, and the entire record herein, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants' motions be, and hereby are, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. As stated in the memorandum opinion issued on this date, defendants' motions are GRANTED with respect to count eleven. Count eleven is hereby dismissed. Defendants' motions are DENIED with respect to the remaining claims. IT IS SO ORDERED this 4 ay of April, 2017. 1--z-C. 0444t-^. yce C. Lamberth United States District Judge

NOTICE of Appearance by Ginny Willcox Leavens on behalf of The City of Clanton

Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 102 Filed 05/04/17 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA Candice Chapman, Michael) Littlefield, and Stedman Kine,) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:15-CV-00125-RCL-WC v.) The City of Clanton,)) Defendant. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Ginny Willcox Leavens of Balch & Bingham LLP gives notice of her appearance as attorney for Defendant the City of Clanton in the above-styled matter and requests that copies of all orders, notices, and pleadings be served on her at the address below. Respectfully submitted on this the 4th day of May, 2017./s/Ginny Willcox Leavens One of the Attorneys for Defendant the City of Clanton OF COUNSEL: Will Hill Tankersley Gregory C. Cook L. Conrad Anderson, IV Ginny Willcox Leavens Chase T. Espy Christopher K. Friedman BALCH & BINGHAM LLP 1901 Sixth Avenue North Suite 1500 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 102 Filed 05/04/17 Page 2 of 3 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Facsimile: (205) 226-8799 Email: WHT@balch.com gcook@balch.com canderson@balch.com gwillcox@balch.com cespy@balch.com cfriedman@balch.com James Wallace Porter, II Richard Warren Kinney PORTER, PORTER & HASSINGER PC PO Box 128 Birmingham, AL 35201-0128 Telephone: (205) 322-1744 Fax: (205) 322-1750 Email: jwporterii@pphlaw.net wkinney@pphlaw.net CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system and service will be perfected upon the following on this the 4th day of May, 2017: G. Daniel Evans J. Mitch McGuire, Esq. Alexandria Parrish MCGUIRE & ASSOCIATES, LLC Maurine C. Evans 31 Clayton Street THE EVANS LAW FIRM, P.C. Montgomery, AL 36104 1736 Oxmoor Road, Suite 101 Birmingham, Alabama 35209 William M. Dawson, Esq. Matthew S. Swerdlin, Esq. DAWSON LAW OFFICE MATTHEW SWERDLIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 2600 Highland Avenue, Suite 404 1736 Oxmoor Road, Suite 101 Birmingham, AL 35205 Homewood, AL 35209 2 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 102 Filed 05/04/17 Page 3 of 3 Larry S. Logsdon F. Lane Finch, Jr. Michael L. Jackson Brian C. Richardson Wesley Kyle Winborn Swift Currie McGhee and Hiers, LLP Wallace, Jordan, Ratliff, & Brandt, 2 North 20th Street, Suite 1405 LLC Birmingham, AL 35203 P.O. Box 530910 Birmingham, AL 35253/s/Ginny Willcox Leavens Of Counsel 3

MOTION TO LIFT STAY re {{59}} Order by Deangelo Barnett, Candice Chapman, Tracy Dubose, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield. Modified on 5/12/2017 to create link to Doc. {{59}}.

Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 103 Filed 05/04/17 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION CANDICE CHAPMAN, MICHAEL LITTLEFIELD,) STEDMAN KINE, DEANGELO BARNETT, TRACY) DUBOSE, individually and for a class of) similarly situated persons or entities.)) Plaintiffs;) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO:) 2:15-cv-125-RCL THE CITY OF CLANTON, a municipal corporation;) JUDICIAL CORRECTION SERVICES, LLC.,) a limited liability company, f/d/b/a) CLASS ACTION JUDICIAL CORRECTION SERVICES, INC.;) CHC COMPANIES, INC., a corporation;) and CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC,) a limited liability company.)) Defendants.) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO LIFT STAY Come now the Plaintiffs in the above-styled cause and submit this Motion to Lift the Stay, which is currently operative in this case. (Doc. 59) In support thereof, the Plaintiffs state as follows: 1. On April 1, 2016, this Court entered an Order Staying all deadlines in the scheduling order (Doc. 59) pending further orders of the Court. This Order also continued the pretrial conference (Doc. 36) which was set for July 7, 2016 and the trial (Doc. 32 & Doc. 36) which was set for August 15, 2016 generally. 2. On April 13, 2016, the Court entered an Order (Doc. 61) further clarifying its Order of April 1st stating: "It is now apparent from Defendant’s motion to stay discovery (Doc. # 60) that the following clarification is necessary: Pursuant to the April 1, 2016 Order (Doc. # 59), this case, including discovery, and all deadlines in the scheduling order (Doc. # 32) are STAYED pending Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 103 Filed 05/04/17 Page 2 of 4 further orders of the court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to stay discovery (Doc. # 60) is DENIED as MOOT." 3. On April 27, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 64) which this Court granted on December 15, 2016. (Doc. 73) 4. On December 15, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 74) 5. Defendants Filed Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (Docs. 79, 82, 86) and on April 25, 2017, this Court entered an Order denying Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss allowing Plaintiffs’ claims 1-10 to proceed. (Doc. 101) 6. On April 27, 2017, Plaintiffs’ Counsel contacted all defense counsel to arrange a meet and confer session to discuss a new proposed scheduling order. (Exhibit 1). 7. Defense Counsel declined Plaintiffs’ counsel’s invitation to participate in any Rule 26, insisting instead that it should be delayed until after they had filed an answer. Similarly, defense counsel insisted that the current stay was in place but agreeing amongst themselves to file a joint motion to lift the stay on May 19th-after their answers had been filed. (Exhibit 2) 8. Plaintiffs’ counsel reminded Defense Counsel that Rule 26 requires parties to meet and confer "as soon as practicable" without relation to requirements to file an answer. (Exhibit 2) 9. Unfortunately, Defense Counsel remains resolute in its position. 10. Plaintiffs request that this Court lift the stay of discovery, and order the parties to confer pursuant to the requirements of Rule 26. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs pray that the Court, upon consideration of this Motion, will lift the stay and order the parties to meet to confer on discovery 2 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 103 Filed 05/04/17 Page 3 of 4 issues pursuant to Rule 26(f). RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, s/G. Daniel Evans G. Daniel Evans ASB-1661-N76G Alexandria Parrish ASB-2477-D66P Maurine C. Evans ASB-4168-P16T Attorneys for the Plaintiffs The Evans Law Firm, P.C. 1736 Oxmoor Road, Suite 101 Birmingham, Alabama 35209 Telephone: (205) 870-1970 Fax: (205) 870-7763 E-Mail: gdevans@evanslawpc.com E-Mail: ap@evanslawpc.com E-Mail: mevans@evanslawpc.com William M. Dawson ASB-3976-S80W Attorney for the Plaintiffs Dawson Law Office 1736 Oxmoor Road Birmingham, Alabama 35209 Telephone: 205-795-3512 E-Mail: bill@billdawsonlaw.com Matt Swerdlin ASB-9090-M74S 1736 Oxmoor Road Birmingham, AL 35209 Phone: 205-795-3517 Mobile: 205-440-3214 Email: matt@attorneyswerdlin.com Joseph Mitchell McGuire ASB-8317-S69M McGuire and Associates 3 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 103 Filed 05/04/17 Page 4 of 4 31 Clayton Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Phone: 334-517-1000 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 4, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Stay with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: James W. Porter, II R. Warren Kinney Porter, Porter & Hassinger, P.C. P.O. Box 128 Birmingham, AL 35201-0128 Will Hill Tankersley Gregory C. Cook L. Conrad Anderson IV Chase T. Espy Balch & Bingham LLP 1901 6th Ave. N., Ste. 1500 Birmingham, AL 35203 Larry S. Logsdon Michael L. Jackson Wesley K. Winborn WALLACE, JORDAN, RATLIFF and BRANDT, LLC P.O. Box 530910 Birmingham, AL 35253 Lane Finch Brian C. Richardson SWIFT CURRIE MCGHEE and HIERS, LLP 2 North 20th Street, Suite 1405 Birmingham, AL 35203 s/G. Daniel Evans G. Daniel Evans 4

Exhibit 1 - Evans' 4 27 17 ltr to counsel

Case 2: 15-cv-00125-RCL-Wc Document 103-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 1 of 9 EVANS EXHIBIT 1 G. Daniel Evans gdevans@evanslawpc.com Alexandria Parrish, JD, CPA, MST ap@evanslawe.com LAW FIRM P. C. Maurine C. Evans mevans@evanslawpc.com April 27, 2017 D. Patrick Evans dpevans@evansławp.com VIA EMAIL AND U. S. MAIL * * *... • • • • James W. Porter, II, Esquire R. Warren Kinney, Esquire Porter, Porter & Hassinger, P. C. P. O. Box 128 Birmingham, AL 35201-0128 Will Hill Tankersley, Esquire Gregory C. Cook, Esquire L. Conrad Anderson IV, Esquire Christopher K. Friedman, Esquire Chase T. Espy, Esquire Balch & Bingham LLP 1901 6th Ave. N., Ste. 1500 Birmingham, AL 35203 Larry S. Logsdon, Esquire Michael L. Jackson, Esquire Wesley K. Winborn, Esquire WALLACE, JORDAN, RATLIFF and BRANDT, LLC P. O. Box 530910 Birmingham, AL 35253 Lane Finch, Esquire Brian C. Richardson, Esquire SWIFT CURRIE MCGHEE and HIERS, LLP 2 North 20th Street, Suite 1405 Birmingham, AL 35203............................................. RE: Chapman, et al v. The City of Clanton, et al 2: 15-CV-00125-WC Dear Counsel: In light of Judge Lamberth's orders entered Tuesday, (Doc. 101) it is clear that a new scheduling order needs to be implemented. The record indicates that a scheduling order was previously entered on March 1, 2016 (Doc. 32), but thereafter two orders staying the deadlines were also entered. (Docs. 59 & 61) The Plaintiffs have currently outstanding interrogatories, admissions and request for production that were stayed by virtue of those last two orders. For that reason, please find enclosed a proposed scheduling order form with dates left blank to reschedule this case so that discovery can proceed. 1736 Oxmoor Road, Suite 101, Birmingham (Homewood), Alabama 35209 Telephone: (205) 870-1970 • Fax: (205) 870-7763 • Toll Free: 1-866-801-9599 Website: www.evansławpc.com Case 2: 15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 103-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 2 of 9 April 27, 2017 Page Two offer my office as a location for a face-to-face meet and confer to more fully discuss discovery deadlines and any other discovery issues that need to be addressed prior to filing the proposed scheduling order-including but not limited to: 1. the possibility for promptly settling or resolving the case; 2. making or arranging for the disclosures required by Rule 26 (a) (1); 3. any issues about preserving discoverable information; and developing a proposed discovery plan. Tam available anytime next Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. Please let me know dates you are available to meet and if you have any questions or concerns about the same. I would like to get this matter presented to the court by next Friday, May 5th, so please respond promptly. Sincerely yours, G. Daniet Evans GDE/jbi Enclosure Cc: William M. Dawson, Jr., Esquire-via email Matthew S. Swerdlin, Esquire-via email Joseph M. McGuire, Esquire-via email------------------brawYIsr' irrir-T-I Case 2: 15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 103-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 3 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION CANDICE CHAPMAN, MICHAEL LITTLEFIELD,). STEDMAN KINE, DEANGELO BARNETT, TRACY) DUBOSE, individually and for a class of similarly situated persons or entities. Plaintiffs; CIVIL ACTION NO: 2: 15-ev-125-RCL THE CITY OF CLANTON, a municipal corporation; JUDICIAL CORRECTION SERVICES, LLC., a limited liability company, f/d/b/a JUDICIAL CORRECTION SERVICES, INC.; CHC COMPANIES, INC., a corporation; and CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, a limited liability company. دی به د ب ب ب ب ۔ CLASS ACTION Defendants. PARTIES' REPORT ON RULE 26 PLANNING MEETING Pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, counsel for all parties conferred by phone several times thereafter to conduct a Rule 26 (f) planning meeting. The following is the parties' joint proposal for scheduling. 1. Those participating in such conference were: Counsel for the Plaintiffs G. Daniel Evans Alexandria Parrish Maurine Evans Bill Dawson Matt Swerdlin Counsel for The City of Clanton James W. Porter, II R. Warren Kinney Will Hill Tankersley Gregory C. Cook, Esquire Case 2: 15-CV-00125-RCL-WC Document 103-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 4 of 9 L. Conrad Anderson IV, Esquire Christopher K. Friedman, Esquire Chase T. Espy, Esquire Counsel for CHC Companies, LLC and Correct Care Solutions, LLC F. Lane Finch Brian C. Richardson Counsel for Judicial Correction Services, LLC. Larry S. Logsdon Michael L. Jackson Wesley K. Winborn 2. Discovery Plan: Initial Disclosures: By both parties due by. b. Commencement of Discovery: The period for discovery shall commence c. Discovery Deadline: All discovery to be completed within twelve months of commencement. d. Class Certification: Plaintiffs request that all class certification expert reports, motions and evidentiary submissions be completed as follows: Not later than Plaintiffs' Class Certification Expert Report(s): Defendant's Class Certification Expert Report(s): 30 days after receipt of plaintiffs' report(s) Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Report(s): 30 days after receipt of defendant's expert report(s) Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion: Not later than Defendant's Response To Class Certification: 30 days after class certification motion Case 2: 15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 103-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 5 of 9 Expert Reports On Merits: Expert reports on the merits to be exchanged as follows: Plaintiffs' Expert Reports On Merits by Defendant's Expert Reports On Merits due 30 days after the plaintiffs' reports; Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Reports due 30 days after the defendant's reports. Interrogatories: Plaintiffs and defendants to be limited to maximum of 60 interrogatories absent agreement of the parties or permission of the Court. Requests For Production: Plaintiffs and defendants to be limited to 60 requests for production absent agreement of the parties or further permission of the Court. h. Requests for Admission; Plaintiffs and defendants to be limited to 60 requests for admission absent agreement of the parties or further permission of the Court. Depositions: Plaintiffs collectively and defendants collectively are limited to fifteen depositions. Depositions shall last no more than seven hours absent agreement of the parties or permission of the Court. Other Items: Conference On Scheduling Order: Plaintiffs do not request a conference with the Court to resolve the parties' disagreements concerning a discovery plan and any other disputes. b. Pretrial Conference: The parties request a final Pretrial Conference at least sixty days before any trial setting. Case 2: 15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 103-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 6 of 9 Amended Pleadings: Plaintiffs propose that all pleadings must be amended i 2 d Dispositive Motions: Not later than Settlement Prospects: Prospects for settlement are unknown at the current time. Mediation: Plaintiffs believe that the prospects for settlement would be enhanced by the assistance of an agreed-upon or court-appointed mediator. Suggested Trial Date: Summary Of Proposed Deadlines: Assuming that the period for discovery begins, the foregoing deadlines would be as follows: Discovery Commencement: Not later than Plaintiffs' Class Certification Expert Report(s): Defendants' Class Certification Expert Report(s): 30 days after receipt of plaintiffs' report(s) Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Report(s): 30 days after receipt of defendants' expert report(s) Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion: Not later than Defendants' Response To Class Certification: 30 days after class certification motion Discovery Completion; Plaintiffs' Expert Reports On Merits: Defendants' Expert Reports On Merits: Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Reports On Merits: Çase 2: 15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 103-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 7 of 9 Depositive Motions: Not later than Trial: After RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, S/G. Daniel Evans G, Daniel Evans ASB-1661-N76G Alexandria Parrish ASB-2477-D66P The Evans Law Firm, P. C. 1736 Oxmoor Road, Suite 101 Birmingham, Alabama 35209 Telephone: (205) 870-1970 Fax: (205) 870-7763 E-Mail: gdevans@evanslawpc.com E-Mail: ap@evanslawpc.com William M. Dawson ASB-3976-S80W Attorney for the Plaintiffs Dawson Law Office 1736 Oxmoor Road Birmingham, Alabama 35209 Telephone: 205-795-3512 E-Mail: bill@billdawsonlaw.com Matt Swerdlin ASB-9090-M74S 1736 Oxmoor Road Birmingham, AL 35209 Phone: 205-795-3517-Mobile: 205-440-3214 Email: matt@attorneyswerdlin.com................................................................ Joseph Mitchell McGuire ASB-8317-S69M McGuire and Associates 31 Clayton Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Phone: 334-517-1000 Attorneys for the Plaintiffs 5 5 Case 2: 15-CV-00125-RCL-WC Document 103-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 8 of 9 S/R. Warren Kinney James W. Porter, II Richard Warren Kinney Porter, Porter & Hassinger, P. C. jwporterii@pphlaw.net, wkinney@pphlaw.net s/Will Hill Tankersley Will Hill Tankersley Gregory C. Cook L. Conrad Anderson IV Chase T. Espy Christopher K. Friedman, Esquire BALCH & BINGHAM LLP whtſ@balch.com gcook@balch.com canderson@balch.com cespy@balch.com cfriedman@balch.com Attorneys for City of Clanton/Michael L. Jackson Michael L. Jackson (ASB-1143-S75M) Larry S. Logsdon (ASB-0832-G69L) Wesley K. Winborn (ASB-8938-S66W) Wallace, Jordan, Ratliff & Brandt, L. L. C. P. O. Box 530910 Birmingham, Alabama 35253 llogsdon@wallacejordan.com mjackson@wallacejordan.com wwinborn@wallacejordan.com Attorneys for Judicial Correction Services, LLC S/Brian C. Richardson F. Lane Finch, Jr. (ASB-0027-158F) Brian C. Richardson (ASB-5241-H14U) SWIFT, CURRIE, MCGHEE & HIERS, LLP 2 North 20th Street, Suite 1405 Birmingham, AL 35203 6 Case 2: 15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 103-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 9 of 9 Telephone: (205) 314-2401 Facsimile: (205) 244-1373 lane. finch@swiftcurrie.com brian. richardson@swiftcurrie.com Attorneys for CHC Companies, LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this the day of, 2017, 1 electronically filed the foregoing Parties' Report on Rule 26 Planning Meeting with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: James W, Porter, II R. Warren Kinney Porter, Porter & Hassinger, P. C. P. O. Box 128 Birmingham, AL 35201-0128 Will Hill Tankersley Gregory C. Cook L. Conrad Anderson IV Chase T. Espy Balch & Bingham LLP 1901 6th Ave. N., Ste. 1500 Birmingham, AL 35203 Larry S. Logsdon Michael L. Jackson Wesley K. Winborn WALLACE, JORDAN, RATLIFF and BRANDT, LLC P. O. Box 530910 Birmingham, AL 35253 Lane Finch Brian C. Richardson SWIFT CURRIE MCGHEE and HIERS, LLP 2 North 20th Street, Suite 1405 Birmingham, AL 35203 S/G. Daniel Evans G. Daniel Evans 7

Exhibit 2 -Emails between counsel

Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 103-2 Filed 05/04/17 Page 1 of 5 Alexandria Parrish EXHIBIT 2 From: Cook, Greg <Gcook@balch.com> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:42 PM To: Danny Evans; 'Warren Kinney'; Janet Ives; James W. Porter; Tankersley, Will Hill; Anderson, Conrad; Friedman, Christopher; Espy, Chase; llogsdon@wallacejordan.com; Michael L. Jackson; wwinborn@wallacejordan.com; Finch, Lane; Richardson, Brian Cc: Bill Dawson; matthewswerdlin@gmail.com; jmcguire@mandabusinesslaw.com; wgreen@fleenorgreen.com; Alexandria Parrish; Janet Ives Subject: RE: Chapman, et al v. The City of Clanton, et al I consulted with Warren before I sent the email. So, my email speaks for the City. Both Warren and I represent the City and we work as a team. We understand that the case must be moving and intend to work cooperative to get there. We hope that our experience in working with you in discovery in other cases will help us to focus our efforts here. As I noted below, we consent to filing a joint motion to lift the stay on May 19th. Have a good weekend. Greg. From: Danny Evans [mailto:gdevans@evanslawpc.com] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:37 PM To: Cook, Greg; 'Warren Kinney'; Janet Ives; James W. Porter; Tankersley, Will Hill; Anderson, Conrad; Friedman, Christopher; Espy, Chase; llogsdon@wallacejordan.com; Michael L. Jackson; wwinborn@wallacejordan.com; Finch, Lane; Richardson, Brian Cc: Bill Dawson; matthewswerdlin@gmail.com; jmcguire@mandabusinesslaw.com; wgreen@fleenorgreen.com; Alexandria Parrish; Janet Ives Subject: RE: Chapman, et al v. The City of Clanton, et al Greg, please advise who among its many counsel will be speaking for the city as it appears your position is different from Warren’s. As you know this case has been pending quite some time. Thanks for consenting to removal of the stay. G. Daniel Evans The Evans Law Firm, P.C. Attorneys at Law 1736 Oxmoor Road Birmingham, Alabama 35209 Phone: 205-870-1970 Fax: 205-870-7763 Website: www.evanslawpc.com The Evans LAW FIRM P.C. THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED 1 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 103-2 Filed 05/04/17 Page 2 of 5 THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE (205) 870-1970 AND/OR RETURN E-MAIL. THANK YOU From: Cook, Greg [mailto:Gcook@balch.com] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:28 PM To: 'Warren Kinney' <wkinney@pphlaw.net>; Danny Evans <gdevans@evanslawpc.com>; Janet Ives <jbives@evanslawpc.com>; James W. Porter <jwporterii@pphlaw.net>; Tankersley, Will Hill <WHT@Balch.com>; Anderson, Conrad <canderson@balch.com>; Friedman, Christopher <cfriedman@balch.com>; Espy, Chase <cespy@balch.com>; llogsdon@wallacejordan.com; Michael L. Jackson <mjackson@wallacejordan.com>; wwinborn@wallacejordan.com; Finch, Lane <Lane.Finch@swiftcurrie.com>; Richardson, Brian <Brian.Richardson@swiftcurrie.com> Cc: Bill Dawson <bill@billdawsonlaw.com>; matthewswerdlin@gmail.com; jmcguire@mandabusinesslaw.com; wgreen@fleenorgreen.com; Alexandria Parrish <ap@evanslawpc.com>; Janet Ives <jbives@evanslawpc.com>; Cook, Greg <Gcook@balch.com> Subject: RE: Chapman, et al v. The City of Clanton, et al Just to be clear, the City is not refusing to meet. The City is merely stating that it must have sufficient time to meet with its employees and determine the scope, location and type of documents/information which must be produced, as well as the relevant persons (and therefore a realistic discovery plan and case schedule). This time is especially necessary in light of the voluminous complaint, which is several times the length of the original complaint. The City is also entitled to consider its answer. Further, the City believes that the newly added defendants are entitled to such an opportunity as well and their participation in a Rule 26 meeting are necessary. In addition, the City notes that there is currently a stay in this action which has not been lifted. The City agrees that the stay should be lifted in light of the Court’s order on the motion to dismiss and the City will agree to such a lifting once it has done its necessary diligence. Therefore the City suggests that it send to you its proposed Rule 26 report on May 19th before noon. If this is acceptable to you, you can immediately file it. If not, we can negotiate and we will make ourselves available promptly by phone or in person if that is necessary. You can treat May 19th as the Rule 26 meeting date. I have run this date past the other defendants and they agree that they will be prepared to comply with this date. We will also agree to a joint motion to lift the stay of discovery on May 19th. Also, I suggest that you may wish to consider whether to withdraw the discovery issued by earlier counsel and reissue discovery similar to that which you have issued in other litigation. However, that is obviously your decision. Let me know your thoughts and have a good weekend. Greg. Gregory C. Cook, Partner, Balch & Bingham LLP 1901 Sixth Avenue North • Suite 1500 • Birmingham, AL 35203‐4642 t: (205) 226‐3426 c: (205) 566‐4356 f: (205) 488‐5870 e: gcook@balch.com www.balch.com twitter:@SEFinancialLit blog: www.sefinanciallitigation.com From: Warren Kinney [mailto:wkinney@pphlaw.net] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 10:44 AM 2 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 103-2 Filed 05/04/17 Page 3 of 5 To: Danny Evans; Janet Ives; James W. Porter; Tankersley, Will Hill; Cook, Greg; Anderson, Conrad; Friedman, Christopher; Espy, Chase; llogsdon@wallacejordan.com; Michael L. Jackson; wwinborn@wallacejordan.com; Finch, Lane; Richardson, Brian Cc: Bill Dawson; matthewswerdlin@gmail.com; jmcguire@mandabusinesslaw.com; wgreen@fleenorgreen.com; Alexandria Parrish; Janet Ives Subject: RE: Chapman, et al v. The City of Clanton, et al The City. From: Danny Evans [mailto:gdevans@evanslawpc.com] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 10:39 AM To: Warren Kinney <wkinney@pphlaw.net>; Janet Ives <jbives@evanslawpc.com>; James W. Porter <jwporterii@pphlaw.net>; Tankersley, Will Hill <WHT@Balch.com>; Gcook@balch.com; Anderson, Conrad <canderson@balch.com>; cfriedman@balch.com; Espy, Chase <cespy@balch.com>; llogsdon@wallacejordan.com; Michael L. Jackson <mjackson@wallacejordan.com>; wwinborn@wallacejordan.com; Finch, Lane <Lane.Finch@swiftcurrie.com>; Richardson, Brian <Brian.Richardson@swiftcurrie.com> Cc: Bill Dawson <bill@billdawsonlaw.com>; matthewswerdlin@gmail.com; jmcguire@mandabusinesslaw.com; wgreen@fleenorgreen.com; Alexandria Parrish <ap@evanslawpc.com>; Janet Ives <jbives@evanslawpc.com> Subject: RE: Chapman, et al v. The City of Clanton, et al It is my position that the rules require this meeting and that the rule has no reference to you answer. We will address this formally in light of your refusal. Are you speaking for all defendants or just the city? Danny G. Daniel Evans The Evans Law Firm, P.C. Attorneys at Law 1736 Oxmoor Road Birmingham, Alabama 35209 Phone: 205-870-1970 Fax: 205-870-7763 Website: www.evanslawpc.com The Evans LAW FIRM P.C. THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE (205) 870-1970 AND/OR RETURN E-MAIL. THANK YOU From: Warren Kinney [mailto:wkinney@pphlaw.net] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 10:03 AM To: Danny Evans <gdevans@evanslawpc.com>; Janet Ives <jbives@evanslawpc.com>; James W. Porter <jwporterii@pphlaw.net>; Tankersley, Will Hill <WHT@Balch.com>; Gcook@balch.com; Anderson, Conrad <canderson@balch.com>; cfriedman@balch.com; Espy, Chase <cespy@balch.com>; llogsdon@wallacejordan.com; Michael L. Jackson <mjackson@wallacejordan.com>; wwinborn@wallacejordan.com; Finch, Lane <Lane.Finch@swiftcurrie.com>; Richardson, Brian <Brian.Richardson@swiftcurrie.com> Cc: Bill Dawson <bill@billdawsonlaw.com>; matthewswerdlin@gmail.com; jmcguire@mandabusinesslaw.com; 3 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 103-2 Filed 05/04/17 Page 4 of 5 wgreen@fleenorgreen.com; Alexandria Parrish <ap@evanslawpc.com>; Janet Ives <jbives@evanslawpc.com> Subject: RE: Chapman, et al v. The City of Clanton, et al Danny, Considering that new plaintiffs, new defendants, and new claims have been included in the Second Amended and Restated Complaint’s 300+ paragraphs, conducting a discovery conference will not be practicable until after the Defendants have had an opportunity to file their Answers. ‐Warren From: Danny Evans [mailto:gdevans@evanslawpc.com] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 9:54 AM To: Warren Kinney <wkinney@pphlaw.net>; Janet Ives <jbives@evanslawpc.com>; James W. Porter <jwporterii@pphlaw.net>; Tankersley, Will Hill <WHT@Balch.com>; Gcook@balch.com; Anderson, Conrad <canderson@balch.com>; cfriedman@balch.com; Espy, Chase <cespy@balch.com>; llogsdon@wallacejordan.com; Michael L. Jackson <mjackson@wallacejordan.com>; wwinborn@wallacejordan.com; Finch, Lane <Lane.Finch@swiftcurrie.com>; Richardson, Brian <Brian.Richardson@swiftcurrie.com> Cc: Bill Dawson <bill@billdawsonlaw.com>; matthewswerdlin@gmail.com; jmcguire@mandabusinesslaw.com; wgreen@fleenorgreen.com; Alexandria Parrish <ap@evanslawpc.com>; Janet Ives <jbives@evanslawpc.com> Subject: RE: Chapman, et al v. The City of Clanton, et al Warren, the Rule 26 meeting is not tied to the answer and states "as soon as practicable." I do not see any reason to delay further. Danny G. Daniel Evans The Evans Law Firm, P.C. Attorneys at Law 1736 Oxmoor Road Birmingham, Alabama 35209 Phone: 205-870-1970 Fax: 205-870-7763 Website: www.evanslawpc.com The Evans LAW FIRM P.C. THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE (205) 870-1970 AND/OR RETURN E-MAIL. THANK YOU From: Warren Kinney [mailto:wkinney@pphlaw.net] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 9:27 AM To: Janet Ives <jbives@evanslawpc.com>; James W. Porter <jwporterii@pphlaw.net>; Tankersley, Will Hill <WHT@Balch.com>; Gcook@balch.com; Anderson, Conrad <canderson@balch.com>; cfriedman@balch.com; Espy, Chase <cespy@balch.com>; llogsdon@wallacejordan.com; Michael L. Jackson <mjackson@wallacejordan.com>; wwinborn@wallacejordan.com; Finch, Lane <Lane.Finch@swiftcurrie.com>; Richardson, Brian <Brian.Richardson@swiftcurrie.com> Cc: Bill Dawson <bill@billdawsonlaw.com>; matthewswerdlin@gmail.com; jmcguire@mandabusinesslaw.com; 4 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 103-2 Filed 05/04/17 Page 5 of 5 wgreen@fleenorgreen.com; Danny Evans <gdevans@evanslawpc.com>; Alexandria Parrish <ap@evanslawpc.com> Subject: RE: Chapman, et al v. The City of Clanton, et al Danny, Our Answer to the Second Amended Complaint is not even due until May 10th. Any consideration of a discovery plan prior to the filing of our Answer would be premature. Let’s revisit the arrangement of a Rule 26 planning conference after all Defendants have Answered the Second Amended and Restated Complaint. Thanks. ‐Warren From: Janet Ives [mailto:jbives@evanslawpc.com] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 2:33 PM To: James W. Porter <jwporterii@pphlaw.net>; Warren Kinney <wkinney@pphlaw.net>; Tankersley, Will Hill <WHT@Balch.com>; Gcook@balch.com; Anderson, Conrad <canderson@balch.com>; cfriedman@balch.com; Espy, Chase <cespy@balch.com>; llogsdon@wallacejordan.com; Michael L. Jackson <mjackson@wallacejordan.com>; wwinborn@wallacejordan.com; Finch, Lane <Lane.Finch@swiftcurrie.com>; Richardson, Brian <Brian.Richardson@swiftcurrie.com> Cc: Bill Dawson <bill@billdawsonlaw.com>; matthewswerdlin@gmail.com; jmcguire@mandabusinesslaw.com; wgreen@fleenorgreen.com; Danny Evans <gdevans@evanslawpc.com>; Alexandria Parrish <ap@evanslawpc.com> Subject: Chapman, et al v. The City of Clanton, et al Counsel, please see attached letter and proposed scheduling order form. Sincerely, Janet B. Ives Legal Assistant The Evans Law Firm, P.C. 1736 Oxmoor Road, Suite 101 Birmingham, Alabama 35209 PHONE: 205‐870‐1970 FAX: 205‐870‐7763 http://www.evanslawpc.com The Evans LAW FIRM P.C. CONFIDENTIALITY: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or privileged and are therefore protected against copying, use, disclosure or distribution. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and double deleting this copy and the reply from your system. 5

RESPONSE in Opposition re {{103}} MOTION TO LIFT STAY filed by The City of Clanton.

Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 104 Filed 05/08/17 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION CANDICE CHAPMAN, et al.)) Plaintiffs,) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:15-cv-125-RCL-WC THE CITY OF CLANTON, et al.)) Defendants.)) Defendant the City of Clanton’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Stay The City agrees that the stay should be lifted less than two weeks from today (on May 19th) and that a Rule 26 conference should be held on that same day. The City has told Plaintiffs’ counsel of both of these things. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs’ counsel has elected to run to this Court and file for an immediate lifting of the stay and an immediate Order for the parties to hold their Rule 26 conference. (Doc. 103 at 2–3). In doing so, Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts, incorrectly, that "Defense Counsel declined Plaintiffs’ counsel’s invitation to participate in any Rule 26 [sic]." Id. at 2. This is not true: The City’s counsel, on behalf of all Defendants in this case, affirmatively and clearly offered to send Plaintiffs’ counsel "its Rule 26 report on May 19th before noon[,]" and to meet immediately if that was unacceptable to Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Doc. 103-2 at 2) ("[Y]ou can treat May 19th as the Rule 26 1499376.1 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 104 Filed 05/08/17 Page 2 of 7 meeting date; "if this is [unacceptable], we can negotiate and we will make ourselves available promptly by phone or in person if that is necessary."). The City asked Plaintiffs’ counsel for a modest amount of time to prepare for the Rule 26 conference. This is entirely normal and ordinary for the holding of a Rule 26 meeting–especially in light of the massive expansion of this Complaint. Previously, the Complaint was 27 pages and 128 paragraphs long. (Doc. 43). Now, the Complaint is 78 pages and 399 paragraphs long. The class definition has changed. Compare (Doc. 43 at 14–15) with (Doc. 74 at 2). There are two additional defendants. Thus, the scope of discovery is necessarily different than it would have been under the First Amended Complaint. Moreover, the Answer is not even due yet. The City requires a sufficient amount of time to meet with its client and understand better the scope of discovery, documents, and witnesses before the Rule 26 report is completed, and does not believe its request to do so was unreasonable. It is entirely unclear what benefit a Court Order mandating a Rule 26 conference provides, especially in light of the fact that Defendants have offered to provide a Rule 26 report eleven days from today. Thus, the City respectfully requests that the Court allow the parties to work out this "dispute" for themselves and deny Plaintiffs’ motion. In further support of the City’s response, the City states as follows: 1499376.1 2 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 104 Filed 05/08/17 Page 3 of 7 1. On December 15, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a 78 page, 399 paragraph Second Amended Complaint ("Complaint") that asserts eleven counts against the City and three other Defendants. (Doc. 74). Plaintiffs’ putative class action asserts detailed factual allegations involving five named individual Plaintiffs, all of whom have multiple relevant criminal convictions in the Clanton Municipal Court. Id. at 11–33. The Complaint also asserts that the putative class involves "more than one thousand" individuals. Id. at 33. Plaintiffs make claims about, inter alia, the "policies and procedures" of the City of Clanton, its Mayor and City Counsel, and its police department, as well as the Clanton Municipal Court. See id. 2. The constitutional issues raised by Plaintiffs are complex, and there are numerous facts that purport to form the basis of the named Plaintiffs’ claims (not to mention the purportedly "thousands" of putative class members) which the City is obligated to verify prior to filing an Answer. Thus, the City’s counsel continues to work diligently with the City to discover the facts necessary to prepare and file an Answer to Plaintiffs’ 399 paragraph Complaint. 3. Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the scope of discovery is limited to "nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In other words, the course of discovery over the life of this lawsuit is necessarily intertwined with the specific claims asserted by Plaintiffs, and any defenses that 1499376.1 3 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 104 Filed 05/08/17 Page 4 of 7 might be asserted by the City. As such, it is entirely reasonable for the City to have an opportunity to review and analyze the Complaint, meet with City employees, determine the scope, location, and type of documents and information that must be produced, and the relevant individuals who must be disclosed to Plaintiffs, and file an Answer to the Complaint that frames the issues, as well as the City’s defenses, prior to conferring with Plaintiffs about the course of discovery. 4. Plaintiffs’ assertion that the City "declined Plaintiffs’ counsel’s invitation to participate in any Rule 26 [sic]" is untrue. (Docs. 103 at 2; 103-2 at 2). Rather, on April 28, 2017, the City offered to send Plaintiffs’ counsel a draft Rule 26 report on May 19th: Just to be clear, the City is not refusing to meet.... The City agrees that the stay should be lifted in light of the Court’s order on the motion to dismiss and the City will agree to such a lifting once it has done its necessary diligence. Therefore, the City suggests that it send to you its proposed Rule 26 report on May 19th before noon. If this is acceptable to you, we can immediately file it. If not, we can negotiate and we will make ourselves available promptly by phone or in person if that is necessary. You can treat May 19th as the Rule 26 meeting date. I have run this date past the other defendants and they agree that they will be prepared to comply with this date. We will also agree to a joint motion to lift the stay of discovery on May 19th. (Doc. 103-2 at 2) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs’ counsel never responded to this request. Rather, on May 4th, they filed the instant motion. 5. The City’s proposal to meet and confer, and file a joint motion to lift the stay on May 19th is entirely reasonable. The offer gave the City a 1499376.1 4 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 104 Filed 05/08/17 Page 5 of 7 short amount of time to uncover discoverable information, respond to Plaintiffs’ voluminous Complaint, and prepare a draft Rule 26 report. Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to lift the stay a mere two weeks before the City’s proposed deadline to send a draft Rule 26 report. And as of this filing, the proposed deadline is only eleven days away. Thus, it is entirely unclear how a Court Order requiring a Rule 26 conference prior to May 19th, 2017 benefits any party to this lawsuit. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant the City of Clanton respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order requiring the parties to meet and confer pursuant to Rule 26 on or before May 19, 2017, and an Order lifting the discovery stay on that date./s/Gregory C. Cook One of the Attorneys for Defendant the City of Clanton OF COUNSEL: Will Hill Tankersley Gregory C. Cook L. Conrad Anderson, IV Ginny Willcox Leavens Chase T. Espy Christopher K. Friedman BALCH & BINGHAM LLP 1901 Sixth Avenue North Suite 1500 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Facsimile: (205) 226-8799 1499376.1 5 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 104 Filed 05/08/17 Page 6 of 7 Email: WHT@balch.com gcook@balch.com canderson@balch.com gwillcox@balch.com cespy@balch.com cfriedman@balch.com James Wallace Porter, II Richard Warren Kinney PORTER, PORTER & HASSINGER PC PO Box 128 Birmingham, AL 35201-0128 Telephone: (205) 322-1744 Fax: (205) 322-1750 Email: jwporterii@pphlaw.net wkinney@pphlaw.net CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system and service will be perfected upon the following on this the 8th day of May, 2017: G. Daniel Evans J. Mitch McGuire, Esq. Alexandria Parrish MCGUIRE & ASSOCIATES, LLC Maurine C. Evans 31 Clayton Street THE EVANS LAW FIRM, P.C. Montgomery, AL 36104 1736 Oxmoor Road, Suite 101 Birmingham, Alabama 35209 William M. Dawson, Esq. Matthew S. Swerdlin, Esq. DAWSON LAW OFFICE MATTHEW SWERDLIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 2600 Highland Avenue, Suite 404 1736 Oxmoor Road, Suite 101 Birmingham, AL 35205 Homewood, AL 35209 Larry S. Logsdon F. Lane Finch, Jr. Michael L. Jackson Brian C. Richardson 1499376.1 6 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 104 Filed 05/08/17 Page 7 of 7 Wesley Kyle Winborn Swift Currie McGhee and Hiers, LLP Wallace, Jordan, Ratliff, & Brandt, 2 North 20th Street, Suite 1405 LLC Birmingham, AL 35203 P.O. Box 530910 Birmingham, AL 35253/s/Gregory C. Cook Of Counsel 1499376.1 7

ANSWER to {{74}} Amended Complaint, by The City of Clanton.

Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 1 of 56 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION CANDICE CHAPMAN, MICHAEL) LITTLEFIELD, STEDMAN KINE,) DEANGELO BARNETT, TRACY) DUBOSE, individually and for a class) of similarly situated persons or) entities,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC THE CITY OF CLANTON, a) municipal corporation; JUDICIAL) CLASS ACTION CORRECTION SERVICES, LLC., a) limited liability company, f/d/b/a) JUDICIAL CORRECTION) SERVICES, INC.; CHC) COMPANIES, INC., a corporation;) and CORRECT CASE SOLUTIONS,) LLC, a limited liability company,)) Defendants.) ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED COMPLAINT Comes Defendant, The City of Clanton and asserts the following in response to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended and Restated Complaint: 1. Defendant admits this court has subject matter jurisdiction, but denies the Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 or 1988. 1521477.2 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 2 of 56 2. Defendant admits this court has subject matter jurisdiction, but denies the plaintiffs are entitled to any relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for their state law claims. 3. No response is due from Defendant to the statement contained in Paragraph 3; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any declaratory judgment. 4. Admitted. PARTIES TO THE COMPLAINT 5. Admitted based on information and belief. 6. Admitted based on information and belief. 7. Admitted based on information and belief. 8. Admitted based on information and belief. 9. Admitted based on information and belief. 10. No response is due from Defendant to the alleged classes the Plaintiffs seek to represent; however, to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 10 and that this case is appropriate for class certification. 11. Defendant admits it is a municipal corporation located in Chilton County, Alabama. The defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 11. 12. Paragraph 12 contains no allegations against Defendant, therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant is without 1521477.2 2 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 3 of 56 sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 12, and therefore is denied. 13. Paragraph 13 contains no allegations against Defendant, therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 13, and therefore is denied. 14. Paragraph 14 contains no allegations against Defendant, therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 14, and therefore is denied. FACTS 15. Denied. 16. Defendant admits that it entered an agreement with JCS to provide probation services. Unless expressly admitted, the Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 16. 17. Denied. 18. Denied. 19. Denied. 20. Denied. 1521477.2 3 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 4 of 56 21. Defendant admits that it contracted with JCS to provide probation services on 2009 and terminated the contract in 2015. The Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 21. 22. Defendant admits that John Hollis Jackson III was approved by the City Council as a judge of the Municipal Court. The Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 22. 23. Denied. 24. Denied. 25. Denied. 26. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 26, therefore they are denied. 27. Denied. 28. Denied. 29. Denied. 30. Denied. 31. Denied. 32. Denied. 33. Defendant admits that the Clanton Mayor and City Council control some aspects of policy making for the City of Clanton, that the City Council approves a Municipal Court judge, and that the City of Clanton contracted with JCS 1521477.2 4 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 5 of 56 for some Municipal Court services. The Defendant denies the remaining paragraphs in Paragraph 33. 34. Denied. 35. Denied. 36. Denied. 37. Denied. 38. Denied. 39. Denied. 40. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 40, therefore they are denied. 41. Denied. 42. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 42, therefore they are denied. 43. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 43, therefore they are denied. 44. Denied. 45. Denied. 46. Denied. THE PLAINTIFFS 47. Denied. 1521477.2 5 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 6 of 56 CANDICE CHAPMAN 48. Defendant admits, based on information and belief, that Ms. Chapman is an individual resident of Jemison, Chilton County, Alabama. 49. Defendant admits that on April 3, 2014, Clanton Police Officers stopped a vehicle that Ms. Chapman was driving, obtained consent to search her vehicle, and discovered Marijuana. Defendants also admit that Ms. Chapman was charged with Possession of Marijuana in the Second Degree. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 49. 50. Defendant admits that on May 13, 2014, Ms. Chapman appeared at the Clanton Municipal Court and pled guilty to Possession of Marijuana in the Second Degree. Defendant further admits that Judge Jackson sentenced her to 30 days in jail, and suspended the sentence in favor of probation and Court Referral. Defendant also admits that Judge Jackson assessed $251 in fines and $650 in court costs. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 50. 51. Defendant admits that Judge Jackson placed Ms. Chapman on probation. The Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 51. 52. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 52, therefore, they are denied. 1521477.2 6 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 7 of 56 53. Defendant admits that Judge Jackson ordered Ms. Chapman to pay JCS a one time $10 file set up charge, and $40 for each month on probation. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 53. 54. Defendant denies that Ms. Chapman was arrested in Wal-Mart on May 25, 2015. Defendant admits that on April 29, 2014, Ms. Chapman was arrested after stealing merchandise from the Clanton Wal-Mart. Defendant admits that Ms. Chapman was charged with Theft of Property in the Third Degree. 55. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 55, therefore, they are denied. 56. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 56, therefore, they are denied. 57. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 57, therefore, they are denied. 58. Defendant admits that Ms. Chapman pled guilty to Theft of Property in the Third Degree on July 15, 2014 in the Clanton Municipal Court. Defendant admits that Judge Jackson sentenced her to 30 days in jail, but suspended the sentence in favor of probation. Defendant further admits that Judge Jackson fined Ms. Chapman $250, and assessed $251 in court costs. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 58. 59. Denied. 1521477.2 7 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 8 of 56 60. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 60, therefore, they are denied. 61. Defendant admits that Judge Jackson ordered Ms. Chapman to pay JCS a one time $10 file set up charge, and $40 for each month on probation. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 61. 62. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 62, therefore, they are denied. 63. Defendant admits that on August 19, 2014, Ms. Chapman pled guilty to Promoting Prison Contraband in the Clanton Municipal Court. Defendant admits that Judge Jackson assessed $200 in fines and $251 in court costs for this offense. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 63. 64. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 64, therefore, they are denied. 65. Defendant admits that, on September 19, 2014, Ms. Chapman was arrested on a bench warrant, issued by the Clanton Court Magistrate, for failure to appear at probation revocation hearing at the Clanton Municipal Court ten days earlier. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 65, therefore, they are denied. 66. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 66, therefore, they are denied. 1521477.2 8 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 9 of 56 67. Denied. 68. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 68, therefore, they are denied. 69. Denied. 70. Denied. 71. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 71, therefore, they are denied. 72. Denied. MICHAEL LITTLEFIELD 73. Defendant admits, based on information and belief, that Mr. Littlefield is an individual resident of Clanton, Chilton County, Alabama. 74. Admitted. 75. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 75, therefore, they are denied. 76. Denied. 77. Defendant admits that Mr. Littlefield pled guilty to driving with an improper tag and driving with a suspended license, and that Judge Jackson assessed fines and court costs totaling $320 and $173.50, respectively. Defendant also admits that Judge Jackson sentenced Mr. Littlefield to probation. Defendant is without 1521477.2 9 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 10 of 56 sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 77, therefore, they are denied. 78. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 78, therefore, they are denied. 79. Defendant admits that Judge Jackson ordered Mr. Littlefield to pay a one time set up fee of $10, and a monthly probation fee of $40. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 79. 80. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 80, therefore, they are denied. 81. Admitted. 82. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 82, therefore, they are denied. 83. Denied. 84. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 84, therefore, they are denied. 85. Defendant admits that Judge Jackson ordered Mr. Littlefield to pay a one time set up fee of $10, and a monthly probation fee of $40. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 85. 86. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 86, therefore, they are denied. 1521477.2 10 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 11 of 56 87. Defendant admits that on November 4, 2014, Mr. Littlefield pled guilty to Illegal Possession of Prescription Drugs. Defendant admits that Judge Jackson sentenced Mr. Littlefield to 30 days in jail, but suspended that sentence in favor of probation. Defendant also admits that Judge Jackson assessed a fine of $251, and court costs of $736. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 87, therefore, they are denied. 88. Defendant admits that Judge Jackson ordered Mr. Littlefield to pay a one time set up fee of $10, and a monthly probation fee of $40. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 88. 89. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 89, therefore, they are denied. 90. Defendant admits that Mr. Littlefield was arrested on December 19, 2014, pursuant to a warrant issued by the Municipal Court. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 90, therefore, they are denied. 91. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 91, therefore, they are denied. 92. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 92, therefore, they are denied. 1521477.2 11 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 12 of 56 93. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 93, therefore, they are denied. 94. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 94, therefore, they are denied. 95. Denied. 96. Denied. 97. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 97, therefore, they are denied. 98. Denied. STEADMAN KINE 99. Defendant admits, based on information and belief, that Mr. Kine is an individual resident of Clanton, Chilton County, Alabama. 100. Admitted. 101. Denied. 102. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 102, therefore, they are denied. 103. Denied. 104. Defendant admits that Judge Jackson ordered Mr. Kine to pay a one time set up fee of $10, and a monthly probation fee of $40. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 104. 1521477.2 12 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 13 of 56 105. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 105, therefore, they are denied. 106. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 106, therefore, they are denied. 107. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 107, therefore, they are denied. 108. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 108, therefore, they are denied. 109. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 109, therefore, they are denied. 110. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 110, therefore, they are denied. 111. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 111, therefore, they are denied. 112. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 112, therefore, they are denied. 113. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 113, therefore, they are denied. 114. Denied. 1521477.2 13 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 14 of 56 115. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 115, therefore, they are denied. 116. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 116, therefore, they are denied. 117. Admitted. 118. Denied. 119. Defendant admits that, on May 14, 2013, Mr. Kine pleaded guilty to Criminal Littering, and Judge Jackson fined him $250, and assessed $251 in court costs. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 119, therefore, they are denied. 120. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 120, therefore, they are denied. 121. Denied. 122. Defendant admits that Judge Jackson ordered Mr. Kine to pay a one time set up fee of $10, and a monthly probation fee of $40. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 122. 123. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 123, therefore, they are denied. 124. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 124, therefore, they are denied. 1521477.2 14 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 15 of 56 125. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 125, therefore, they are denied. 126. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 126, therefore, they are denied. 127. Defendant admits that, on September 17, 2014, Mr. Kine pleaded guilty to Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree. All other allegations in Paragraph 127 are denied unless specifically admitted. 128. Denied that Mr. Kine was not given a jail sentence for Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree. Admitted that Judge Jackson assessed a $200 fine and $374 in court costs. 129. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 129, therefore, they are denied. 130. Denied. 131. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 131, therefore, they are denied. 132. Defendant admits that Judge Jackson ordered Mr. Kine to pay a one time set up fee of $10, and a monthly probation fee of $40. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 132. 133. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 133, therefore, they are denied. 1521477.2 15 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 16 of 56 134. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 134, therefore, they are denied. 135. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 135, therefore, they are denied. 136. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 136, therefore, they are denied. 137. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 137, therefore, they are denied. 138. Denied. 139. Defendant admits that, on July 6, 2014, Mr. Kine was involved in a traffic stop where he ran from police officers, but was ultimately subdued. Defendant further admits that Mr. Kine was charged with attempting to elude police, resisting arrest, and possession of marijuana. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 139, therefore, they are denied. 140. Denied. 141. Admitted that Judge Jackson sentenced Mr. Kine to probation. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 141 are denied. 142. Defendant admits that Judge Jackson ordered Mr. Kine to pay a one time set up fee of $10, and a monthly probation fee of $40. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 142. 1521477.2 16 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 17 of 56 143. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 143 and, therefore, they are denied. 144. Denied. 145. Admitted. 146. Denied. 147. Denied. 148. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 148, and therefore, they are denied. 149. Denied. 150. Denied. 151. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 151, therefore, they are denied. 152. Denied. DEANGELO BARNETT 153. Defendant admits, based on information and belief, that Mr. Barnett is an individual resident of Toccoa, Stephens County, Georgia. 154. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 154, and therefore, they are denied. 155. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 155, and therefore, they are denied. 1521477.2 17 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 18 of 56 156. Denied. 157. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 157, and therefore, they are denied. 158. Defendant admits that Judge Jackson ordered Mr. Barnett to pay a one time set up fee of $10, and a monthly probation fee of $40. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 158. 159. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 159, therefore, they are denied. 160. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 160, therefore, they are denied. 161. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 161, therefore, they are denied. 162. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 162, therefore, they are denied. 163. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 163, therefore, they are denied. 164. Denied. 165. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 165, therefore, they are denied. 1521477.2 18 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 19 of 56 166. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 166, therefore, they are denied. 167. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 167, therefore, they are denied. 168. Defendant admits that on July 2, 2013, Mr. Barnett appeared in the Clanton Municipal Court on a charge of Driving While Revoked. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 168, therefore, they are denied. 169. Defendant admits that Judge Jackson ordered Mr. Barnett to pay a one time set up fee of $10, and a monthly probation fee of $40. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 169. 170. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 170, therefore, they are denied. 171. Denied. 172. Defendant admits that Judge Jackson ordered Mr. Barnett to pay a one time set up fee of $10, and a monthly probation fee of $40. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 172. 173. Defendant admits that Mr. Barnett’s February 4, 2014 fines and court costs, which were assessed by Judge Jackson for Driving Without a Seatbelt and 1521477.2 19 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 20 of 56 Driving With a Revoked License, totaled $590. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 173. 174. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 174, therefore, they are denied. 175. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 175, therefore, they are denied. 176. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 176, therefore, they are denied. 177. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 177, therefore, they are denied. 178. Denied. 179. Denied. 180. Denied. TRACY DUBOSE 181. Defendant admits, based on information and belief, that Ms. Dubose is an individual resident of Clanton, Chilton County, Alabama. 182. Defendant admits that, on May 21, 2013, Ms. Dubose pleaded guilty to Possession of Drug Paraphernalia in the Clanton Municipal Court. Defendant also admits that Judge Jackson assessed $251 in fines, and $590 in court costs. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 182 and, therefore, they are denied. 1521477.2 20 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 21 of 56 183. Defendant admits that Judge Jackson ordered Mr. Barnett to pay a one time set up fee of $10, and a monthly probation fee of $40. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 183. 184. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 184, therefore, they are denied. 185. Denied. 186. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 186, therefore, they are denied. 187. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 187, therefore, they are denied. 188. Denied. 189. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 189, therefore, they are denied. 190. Denied. 191. Denied. PLAINTIFFS’ CLASS ALLEGATIONS 192. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 192, and particularly that Plaintiffs’ claims should be certified as a class action. 193. Denied. 194. Denied. 1521477.2 21 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 22 of 56 195. Denied. 196. Denied. 197. Denied. 198. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 198, including subparagraphs "a" through "m." 199. Denied. 200. Denied. 201. Denied. COUNT ONE-DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS CITY OF CLANTON Defendant incorporates by reference the previous answers and denials of the previous Paragraphs as if fully stated therein. 202. Denied. 203. Denied. 204. Denied. 205. Denied. 206. Denied. 207. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 207; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 1521477.2 22 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 23 of 56 208. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 208; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 209. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 209; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 210. Denied. 211. Denied. 212. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 212; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 213. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 213; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 214. Denied. 215. Denied. 216. Denied. 217. Denied. 218. Denied. 219. Denied. 1521477.2 23 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 24 of 56 220. Denied. 221. Denied. 222. Denied. 223. Denied. 224. Denied. 225. Denied. 226. Denied. 227. Denied. 228. Denied. 229. Denied. 230. Denied. 231. Denied. 232. Denied. 233. Denied. 234. Denied. 235. Denied. COUNT TWO DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS BY JCS Defendant incorporates by reference the previous answers and denials of the previous Paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 1521477.2 24 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 25 of 56 236. No response is due to the allegations in Paragraph 236; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 237. Denied as to the City of Clanton. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations pertaining to other municipalities mentioned in Paragraph 237, therefore, they are denied. 238. Denied as to the City of Clanton. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations pertaining to other municipalities mentioned in paragraph 238, therefore, they are denied. 239. No response is due to the allegations in Paragraph 239; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 240. Denied. 241. Denied. 242. Denied. 243. Denied. 244. Denied. 245. Denied. 246. Denied. 247. Denied. 248. No response is due to the allegations in Paragraph 248; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 1521477.2 25 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 26 of 56 249. Denied. 250. Denied. 251. Denied. 252. No response is due to the allegations in Paragraph 252; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 253. Denied. 254. Denied. 255. Denied. 256. Denied. 257. Denied. 258. Denied. 259. Denied. 260. Denied. 261. Denied. 262. Denied. 263. No response is due to the allegations in Paragraph 263; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 264. No response is due to the allegations in Paragraph 264; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 265. Denied. 1521477.2 26 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 27 of 56 266. Denied. 267. Denied as to the City of Clanton. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations pertaining to other municipalities mentioned in paragraph 267, therefore, they are denied. 268. Denied. COUNT THREE VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CITY OF CLANTON Defendant incorporates by reference the previous answers and denials of the previous Paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 269. Denied. 270. Denied. 271. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 271; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 272. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 272; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 273. Denied. 1521477.2 27 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 28 of 56 274. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 274; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 275. Denied. 276. Denied. 277. Denied. 278. Denied. 279. Denied. COUNT FOUR VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT JCS Defendant incorporates by reference the previous answers and denials of the previous Paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 280. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 280; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 281. Denied. 282. Denied. 283. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 283; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 1521477.2 28 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 29 of 56 284. Denied. 285. Denied. 286. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 286; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 287. No response is due from Defendants to the allegations contained in Paragraph 287; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 288. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 288; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 289. Denied. 290. Denied. COUNT FIVE VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT CITY OF CLANTON Defendant incorporates by reference the previous answers and denials of the previous Paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 291. Denied. 292. Denied. 293. Denied. 1521477.2 29 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 30 of 56 294. Denied. 295. Denied. 296. Denied. 297. Denied. 298. Denied. 299. Denied. 300. Denied. 301. Denied. 302. Denied. 303. Denied. 304. Denied. 305. Denied. 306. Denied. 307. Denied. COUNT SIX VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT JCS Defendant incorporates by reference the previous answers and denials of the previous Paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 1521477.2 30 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 31 of 56 308. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 308; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 309. Denied. 310. Denied. 311. Denied. 312. Denied. 313. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 313; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 314. Denied. 315. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 315; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 316. Denied. 317. Denied. 318. Denied. 319. Denied. 320. Denied. 321. Denied. 1521477.2 31 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 32 of 56 322. Denied. COUNT SEVEN VIOLATION OF EIGHTH AMENDMENT CITY OF CLANTON Defendant incorporates by reference the previous answers and denials of the previous Paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 323. Denied. 324. Denied. 325. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 325; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 326. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 326; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 327. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 327; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 328. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 328; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 329. Denied. 1521477.2 32 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 33 of 56 330. Denied. 331. Denied. 332. Denied. 333. Denied. 334. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 334; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 335. Denied. 336. Denied. 337. Denied. COUNT EIGHT VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT JCS Defendant incorporates by reference the previous answers and denials of the previous Paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 338. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 338; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 339. Denied. 1521477.2 33 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 34 of 56 340. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 340; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 341. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 341; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 342. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 342; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 343. Denied. 344. Denied. 345. Denied. 346. Denied. 347. Denied. 348. Denied. 349. Denied. 350. Denied. 351. Denied. 352. Denied. 353. Denied. 1521477.2 34 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 35 of 56 COUNT NINE DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION CITY OF CLANTON Defendant incorporates by reference the previous answers and denials of the previous Paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 354. Denied. 355. Denied. 356. Denied. 357. Denied. 358. Denied. 359. Denied. 360. Denied. 361. Denied. 362. Denied. 363. Denied. 364. Denied. COUNT TEN VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION JCS Defendant incorporates by reference the previous answers and denials of the previous Paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 365. Denied. 1521477.2 35 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 36 of 56 366. Denied. 367. Denied. 368. Denied. 369. Denied. 370. Denied. 371. Denied. 372. Denied. 373. Denied. 374. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 374; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 375. Denied. 376. Denied. 377. Denied. 378. Denied. COUNT ELEVEN DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BOTH THE CITY OF CLANTON AND JCS Defendant incorporates by reference the previous answers and denials of the previous Paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 1521477.2 36 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 37 of 56 379. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 379; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 380. No response is due from Defendant to the allegations contained in Paragraph 380; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 381. Denied. 382. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 382; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 383. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 383; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 384. Denied. 385. Denied. 386. Denied. 387. Denied. 388. Denied. 389. Denied. 390. Denied. 1521477.2 37 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 38 of 56 391. Denied. 392. Denied. 393. Denied. 394. Denied. 395. No response is due from Defendant to the legal conclusion contained in Paragraph 395; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 396. Denied. 397. Denied. 398. Denied. 399. No response is due from Defendant to the allegations contained in Paragraph 399; however, to the extent a response is due, Defendant denies the allegations therein. Defendant denies that the plaintiffs are entitled to any relief requested in the ad damnum clause following Paragraph 399 or otherwise sought in the Second Amended and Restated Complaint not specifically admitted in this Answer. GENERAL DENIAL Defendant denies any factual, legal or mixed allegations in the Second Amended and Restated Complaint not specifically admitted in this Answer. 1521477.2 38 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 39 of 56 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES First Affirmative Defense The Second Amended and Restated Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Second Affirmative Defense Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Third Affirmative Defense Defendant denies that it owed any duty to any of the Plaintiffs. Fourth Affirmative Defense Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for punitive damages. Fifth Affirmative Defense To the extent Plaintiffs plead state law claims, the defendant pleads that the Plaintiffs failed to file a Notice of Claim and Demand as required by Alabama Code 11-47-23 and 11-47-192 (1975). Sixth Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads the doctrines of release, waiver, estoppel (including judicial estoppel), and accord and satisfaction. Seventh Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads the doctrines of laches. 1521477.2 39 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 40 of 56 Eighth Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads set-off and recoupment. Ninth Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads the doctrine of unclean hands. Tenth Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads that the plaintiff has failed to join indispensable parties, including, but not limited to, the State of Alabama. Eleventh Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads the Younger abstention doctrine to the extent Plaintiffs assert their civil rights tort claims on behalf of individuals currently being prosecuted in state court for an offense under state law. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Twelfth Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads all available doctrines of immunity, including but not limited to substantive immunity, qualified immunity, legislative immunity, judicial immunity, absolute immunity, and state agent immunity. Thirteenth Affirmative Defense Defendant denies that the facts of this case reach the threshold for the imposition of punitive damages and that punitive damages cannot be awarded against a municipality as a matter of Alabama and federal law. Furthermore, with regard to the claim for punitive damages, the defendant pleads the following: 1521477.2 40 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 41 of 56 (a) Plaintiffs have failed to present a valid claim for the recovery of punitive damages and the defendant denies any conduct that could warrant the submission of the issue of punitive damages to a jury or the imposition of punitive damages; (b) Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages violates Defendant’s right to equal protection and due process of law under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States; (c) Any award of punitive damages in this case would be in violation of the constitutional safeguards provided to the defendant under the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Alabama, respectively. (d) No punitive damages are warranted or allowable that would exceed comparable maximums established for criminal fines. (e) Punitive damages cannot be sustained because of the lack of clarity in Alabama’s standards for awarding punitive damages. (f) Any claim for punitive damages, on its face and/or as applied in this case, is in violation of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; of the right to counsel provided by the 6th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; of the right to trial by jury of the 7th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; of the proportionality principles contained in the 8th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; the due process clause of the 1521477.2 41 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 42 of 56 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and Article 1, Sections 1, 2, 6, 11, 13, 15, 27, and 35 of the Constitution of the State of Alabama of 1901, and is improper under the common law and public policies of the State of Alabama and under applicable court rules and statutes for the following reasons, jointly and separately: (i) There are no standards provided by Alabama law for the imposition of punitive damages and, therefore, the defendant has not been put on notice and given the opportunity to anticipate punitive liability and/or the potential size of the award and to modify or conform its conduct accordingly; (ii) The procedures to be followed would permit an award of punitive damages against the defendant upon the satisfaction of a burden of persuasion (standard of proof) less than that applicable to the imposition of criminal sanctions for equal culpability; (iii) The procedures to be followed could permit the award of multiple punitive damages for the same act or omission; (iv) There are no provisions or standards for clear and consistent appellate review of any award of punitive damages against the defendants under present Alabama law; (v) The standards of conduct upon which punitive damages are sought against the Defendant are vague and ambiguous; 1521477.2 42 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 43 of 56 (vi) The procedures used by courts under Alabama law and the guidelines given by the jurors, jointly and severally, are vague and ambiguous; (vii) The procedures used by courts under Alabama law and the guidelines given by the jurors, jointly and severally, are vague and ambiguous and, therefore, impermissibly allow jurors broad, unlimited, and undefined power to make determinations on their notions of what the law should be instead of what it is; (viii) The procedures under which punitive damages are awarded and the instructions used under Alabama law, jointly and severally, are vague and ambiguous and, therefore, fail to eliminate the effects of, and to guard against, impermissible juror passion and prejudice; (ix) Present Alabama law does not provide for sufficiently objective and specific standards to be used by the jury in its deliberations on whether to award punitive damages and, if so, on the amount to be awarded; (x) Present Alabama law does not provide a meaningful opportunity for challenging the rational basis for, and any excessiveness of, any award of punitive damages; (xi) Present Alabama law does not provide for adequate and independent review by the trial court and the appellate court of the imposition 1521477.2 43 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 44 of 56 of punitive damages by a jury or of the amount of any punitive damages awarded by a jury; (xii) Present Alabama procedures fail to provide a constitutionally reasonable limit on the amount of any punitive damages award against the defendant; (xiii) Present Alabama procedures may permit the admission of evidence relative to punitive damages in the same proceeding during which liability is determined; (xiv) Present Alabama procedures permit the imposition of joint and several judgments against multiple co-defendants for different acts or degrees of wrongdoing or culpability; and (xv) An award of punitive damages would compensate plaintiffs for elements of damage not otherwise recognized under Alabama law. (g) Plaintiffs’ claims for the recovery of punitive damages are barred by Ala. Code 6-11-20, et seq., and 11-93-2. (h) Plaintiffs’ claims for the recovery of punitive damages are barred by Ala. Code 6-11-27. (i) Plaintiffs’ claims for the recovery of punitive damages are in contravention of the Defendant’s rights under each of the following constitutional provisions: 1521477.2 44 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 45 of 56 (i) Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, as an impermissible burden on interstate commerce; (ii) The Contracts Clause of Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution; (iii) The Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution; (iv) The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution; (v) The constitutional prohibition against vague and overbroad laws; (vi) The prohibition against ex post facto laws in Article I, Section 22 of the Alabama Constitution; (vii) The Contracts Clause of Article I, Section 22 of the Alabama Constitution; and (viii) The Due Process Clause of Article I, Section 6 and/or 13 of the Alabama Constitution. (j) An award of punitive damages in this circumstances of this case would clearly be violative of Defendant’s due process rights as embraced by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and by the due process clause of Article I, Section 6 and/or 13 of the Alabama Constitution, jointly and separately, 1521477.2 45 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 46 of 56 as such award would constitute a deprivation of property without due process of law for the following reasons: (i) There is no rational relationship between the punitive damages awards in Alabama and the wrongfulness of a defendant’s conduct and/or the compensatory damages awarded; (ii) No rational relationship exists between the extent of punitive damages and legitimate interests to be advanced by the State of Alabama; (iii) An award of punitive damages in this case would be penal in nature and, therefore, would be violative of Defendant’s constitutional rights under the United States Constitution and/or the Alabama Constitution unless Defendant is granted the procedural safeguards afforded criminal defendants including, but not limited to, constitutional safeguards against self-incrimination and a heightened standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; (iv) The award of punitive damages on the basis of vicarious liability for the conduct of others violates Defendant’s constitutional rights. (k) The imposition of punitive damages in this case would be in denial of Defendant’s right to equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 1, 6, and 22 of the Alabama Constitution. Specifically, Defendant is treated differently from criminal defendants who are charged for similar or identical culpability. 1521477.2 46 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 47 of 56 Alternatively, the absence of adequate and objective standards for guiding in the assessment of punitive damages fails to insure the equality of treatment between and among similarly situated civil defendants. (l) The assessment of punitive damages in this action would violate the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution to the extent that such award punishes acts or omissions which have allegedly occurred solely outside of state boundaries. (m) The imposition of punitive damages in this action would violate Defendant’s rights under Article I, Section 22 of the Alabama Constitution in that it would impair the contractual obligations of parties to this litigation. (n) With respect to plaintiffs’ demand for punitive damages, Defendant specifically incorporates by reference any and all standards or limitations regarding the determination and/or enforceability of punitive damages awards which arose in the decision of BMW of North America v. Gore, 116 U.S. 1589 (1996). (o) To the extent that Plaintiffs’ demand for punitive damages may result in multiple punitive damages awards being assessed for the same act or omission against Defendant, this award contravenes Defendant’s right to due process under the due process clause of Article I, Section 13 of the Alabama Constitution. In addition, such awards would infringe upon Defendant’s rights against double 1521477.2 47 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 48 of 56 jeopardy ensured by the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution and/or Article I, Section 9 of the Alabama Constitution. (p) The procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded subject civil defendants to punishment for the conduct of others through vicarious liability or through non-apportionment of damages among joint tortfeasors, in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 1 and 6 of the Alabama Constitution. (q) The procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded expose civil defendants to the risk of undefinable, unlimited liability unrelated to actual loss, if any, caused by their conduct, creating a chilling effect on Defendant’s exercise of the right to a judicial resolution of this dispute. (r) Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages is limited by the cap imposed by Ala. Code § 6-11-21. Allowing an award in excess of this legislative cap would directly contravene the express public policy of the State of Alabama. Fourteenth Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads that the Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their alleged damages. 1521477.2 48 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 49 of 56 Fifteenth Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads that each and every action taken by it, separately and severally, was taken in the good faith belief that the same was legal and lawful at the time so taken. Sixteenth Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads that Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. Seventeenth Affirmative Defense Defendant denies that it violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Eighteenth Affirmative Defense Defendant denies it breached any duty owed to the plaintiffs. Nineteenth Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads its actions and/or inactions are not the proximate cause of the Plaintiffs’ alleged damages. Twentieth Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads that Plaintiffs have failed to show the likelihood of irreparable harm. Twenty-First Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads the issuance of an injunction would not serve the public interest. 1521477.2 49 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 50 of 56 Twenty-Second Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads that the harm that would occur to the Defendant if an injunction is issued is greater than any harm to the Plaintiffs if an injunction is not issued. Twenty-Third Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads the Plaintiffs have failed to do equity. Twenty-Fourth Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads failure of conditions precedent to bring this suit. Twenty-Fifth Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads that it cannot be held liable on a respondeat superior basis under Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 689, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), and further that the alleged violations of Plaintiffs’ rights were not the result of a policy, custom or practice of the Defendant. Defendant further pleads that the Alabama Supreme Court has policymaking authority over the Clanton Municipal Court, not the City of Clanton. The policies, practices, and procedures of the Municipal Court are established, supervised, and administered by the Alabama Supreme Court. See Ala. Code §§ 12-2-7 and 12-2-19. Clanton does not control the Municipal Court. Rather, Clanton relies upon the Alabama Court system and the Municipal Judge to manage and establish the day-to-day operation, policies and procedures of the Municipal Court. 1521477.2 50 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 51 of 56 Twenty-Sixth Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads that there is no affirmative link or causal connection between any of its alleged policies, customs or practices and the Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries or damages. Twenty-Seventh Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads this action may not be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Twenty-Eighth Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads that Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the prerequisites for class certification and therefore cannot represent the interest of others. Twenty-Ninth Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert the legal rights or interests of others. Thirtieth Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads that the types of claims alleged by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the alleged putative class they purport to represent are matters in which individual questions predominate and thus are not appropriate for class treatment, including, but not limited to, the fact that each person’s alleged damages are different and subject to different defenses and mitigating circumstances. 1521477.2 51 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 52 of 56 Thirty-First Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads that the alleged putative class that Plaintiffs purport to represent are not so numerous that joinder is impossible. Thirty-Second Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads that Plaintiffs are not similarly situated to the other potential members of the alleged putative class they purport to represent and thus are inadequate representatives and that Plaintiffs’ counsel will not adequately represent the alleged putative class. Thirty-Third Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads that certain interests of the alleged putative group are in conflict with the interests of all or certain subgroups of the members of the putative group. Thirty-Fourth Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads that the Plaintiffs have not shown and cannot show that class treatment of the purported cause of action in the Second Amended and Restated Complaint is superior to other methods of adjudicating the controversy. Thirty-Fifth Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads that the Second Amended and Restated Complaint and in each purported action alleged therein cannot proceed as a purported class because of difficulties likely to be encountered that render the action unmanageable. 1521477.2 52 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 53 of 56 Thirty-Sixth Affirmative Defense Defendant denies that there are common questions of law and fact affecting members of the purported class. Thirty-Seventh Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads that certification of a class, as applied to the facts and circumstances of this case, would constitute a denial of Defendant’s due process rights, both substantive and procedural, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Alabama Constitution of 1901. Thirty-Eighth Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads that Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1984) bars the plaintiffs’ claims. Thirty-Ninth Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads all available affirmative defenses contained in 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e) and limitation on attorneys’ fees contained in that section. Fortieth Affirmative Defense Defendant adopts and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein all affirmative defenses asserted by the other defendants in this case, to the extent that those affirmative defenses are not inconsistent with the answers, denials and affirmative defenses asserted by this Defendant. 1521477.2 53 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 54 of 56 Forty-First Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads the voluntary payment doctrine as to the Plaintiffs’ causes of action and the class action claims. Forty-Second Affirmative Defense Defendant reserves the right to amend this Answer as discovery proceeds in this case. Forty-Third Affirmative Defense Defendant invokes the protections of Alabama Code Section 11-47-190. Forty-Fourth Affirmative Defense Defendant invokes the protections of Alabama Code Section 11-47-191. Fourty-Fifth Affirmative Defense Defendant contests the form and sufficiency of process and of service of process. Fourty-Sixth Affirmative Defense Defendant pleads the applicable statute of limitations. Fourty-Seventh Affirmative Defense Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Fourty-Eighth Affirmative Defense Defendant adopts and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein all affirmative defenses previously asserted by Defendant, and all affirmative defenses asserted by other defendants in this case, to the extent that those affirmative defenses 1521477.2 54 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 55 of 56 are not inconsistent with the answers, denials, and affirmative defenses asserted by Defendants. Fourty-Ninth Affirmative Defense Defendant reserves the right to assert any further additional defenses that may be developed during the course of discovery in this matter. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, s/James W. Porter, II James Wallace Porter, II Richard Warren Kinney PORTER, PORTER & HASSINGER PC 880 Montclair Road, Ste. 175 Birmingham, AL 35213 Telephone: (205) 322-1744 Email: jwporterii@pphlaw.net wkinney@pphlaw.net Will Hill Tankersley Gregory C. Cook L. Conrad Anderson IV Chase T. Espy Christopher K. Friedman BALCH & BINGHAM LLP 1901 Sixth Avenue North, Ste. 1500 P. O. Box 306 (35201) Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 E-Mail: wht@balch.com gcook@balch.com canderson@balch.com cespy@balch.com cfriedman@balch.com Attorneys for City of Clanton 1521477.2 55 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 105 Filed 05/09/17 Page 56 of 56 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system and service will be perfected upon the following this the 9th day of May, 2017: G. Daniel Evans Alexandria Parrish THE EVANS LAW FIRM, P.C. 1736 Oxmoor Road, Suite 101 Birmingham, Alabama 35209 William M. Dawson DAWSON LAW OFFICE 1736 Oxmoor Road Birmingham, Alabama 35209 Matt Swerdlin 1736 Oxmoor Road Birmingham, Alabama 35209 Joseph M. McGuire MCGUIRE AND ASSOCIATES 31 Clayton Street Montgomery, Alabama 36104 James W. Porter, II OF COUNSEL 1521477.2 56

ANSWER to {{74}} Amended Complaint, by CHC Companies, Inc., Correct Care Solutions, LLC.

Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 1 of 34 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION CANDICE CHAPMAN, et al.,) Plaintiffs,)) v.) Civil Action No.:) 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC THE CITY OF CLANTON, JUDICIAL) CORRECTION SERVICES, LLC, CHC) COMPANIES, INC., and CORRECT) CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC,) Defendants.) ANSWER BY CHC COMPANIES, INC. AND CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED COMPLAINT COMES NOW the Defendant improperly named as "CHC Companies, Inc." the correct legal name of which is CHC Companies, LLC (herein after "CHC Cos.") and Defendant Correct Care Solutions, LLC (herein after "CCS") and answers Plaintiffs’ Second Amended and Restated Complaint (Doc. 74) as follows and asserts the following defenses: Jurisdiction 1. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions admit this Court has subject matter jurisdiction, but deny the Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988. Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 2 of 34 2. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions admit this Court has subject matter jurisdiction, but deny the Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 3. No response is due from CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions to the statement contained in Paragraph 3. 4. Admitted. Parties to the Complaint 5-9. Admitted based on information and belief. 10. No response is due from CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions to the putative classes the Plaintiffs seek to represent; however, to the extent a response is required, CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions deny the allegations in paragraph 10. 11-12. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 13. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions admit that CHC Companies, Inc. is a foreign corporation formed in Delaware and doing business in Alabama. The remainder of the paragraph is denied. 14. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions admit that Correct Care Solutions is a foreign corporation formed in Kansas and doing business in 2 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 3 of 34 Alabama. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions admit that Correct Care Solutions’s headquarters is in Nashville, Tennessee. The remainder of this paragraph is denied. Facts 15-19. Denied. 20. The agreement speaks for itself. Any inconsistent allegations are denied. 21-31. Denied. 32-33. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of the allegations, so the allegations are denied. 34-46. Denied. The Plaintiffs 47. Denied. Candice Chapman 48. Admitted based on information and belief. 49-50. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 3 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 4 of 34 51-53. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 54. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 55-57. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 58. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 59-61. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 4 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 5 of 34 62-63. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 64. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 65. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 66. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 67-68. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 69-72. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information 5 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 6 of 34 sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. Michael Littlefield 73. Admitted based on information and belief. 74-75. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 76-79. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 80-82. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 83-85. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 6 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 7 of 34 86-87. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 88. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 89-90. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 91-92. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 93-94. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 95. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to 7 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 8 of 34 form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 96-97. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 98. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. Stedman Kine 99. Admitted based on information and belief. 100-102. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 103-107. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 8 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 9 of 34 108-109. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 110-113. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 114. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 115. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 116-120. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 121-124. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information 9 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 10 of 34 sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 125-131. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 132-134. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 135. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 136-138. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 139-140. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 10 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 11 of 34 141-143. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 144-148. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 149. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 150-151. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 152. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. DeAngelo Barnett 153. Admitted based on information and belief. 11 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 12 of 34 154-156. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 157-162. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 163. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 164-167. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 168. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 169-170. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information 12 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 13 of 34 sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 171. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 172-176. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 177-178. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 179-180. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. Tracy Dubose 181. Admitted based on information and belief. 182-187. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information 13 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 14 of 34 sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 188. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 189-191. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. Plaintiffs’ Class Allegations 192. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions deny the claims should be certified as a class action. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 193-194. Denied. 195. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 196-198. Denied. 14 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 15 of 34 199-201. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. Count One – Denial of Due Process City of Clanton CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions incorporate by reference the previous answers and denials as if fully stated herein. 202. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 203. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 204. The agreement speaks for itself. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of the allegations, so the allegations are denied. 205-206. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 15 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 16 of 34 207-209. No response is due from CHC Companies or Correct Care Solutions to the allegations in these paragraphs; however, to the extent a response is due, CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions deny the allegations of these paragraphs. 210. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 211-212. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 213. No response is due from CHC Companies or Correct Care Solutions to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions deny the allegations of this paragraph. 214-225. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 16 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 17 of 34 226. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 227-228. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 229. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 230. No response is due from CHC Companies or Correct Care Solutions to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions deny the allegations of this paragraph. 231. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 232-234. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 17 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 18 of 34 235. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. Count Two – Denial of Due Process by JCS CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions incorporates by reference the previous answers and denials as if fully stated herein. 236-240. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 241. The agreement speaks for itself. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of the allegations so the allegations are denied. 242-246. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 247-248. Denied. 18 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 19 of 34 249. No response is due from CHC Companies or Correct Care Solutions to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions deny the allegations of this paragraph. 250-268. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. Count Three – Violation of the Fourth Amendment City of Clanton CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions incorporate by reference the previous answers and denials as if fully stated herein. 269. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 270-271. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 272. No response is due from CHC Companies or Correct Care Solutions to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions deny the allegations of this paragraph. 19 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 20 of 34 273. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 274. No response is due from CHC Companies or Correct Care Solutions to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions deny the allegations of this paragraph. 275-277. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 278-279. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. Count Four – Violation of the Fourth Amendment JCS CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions incorporate by reference the previous answers and denials as if fully stated herein. 280-282. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information 20 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 21 of 34 sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 283. Alabama Code Section 15-18-62 speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is denied. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied. 284-285. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 286. No response is due from CHC Companies or Correct Care Solutions to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions deny the allegations of this paragraph. 287-290. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. Count Five – Violation of the Sixth Amendment City of Clanton CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions incorporate by reference the previous answers and denials as if fully stated herein. 21 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 22 of 34 291. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 292-307. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. Count Six – Violation of the Sixth Amendment JCS CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions incorporate by reference the previous answers and denials as if fully stated herein. 308-322. Denied. Count Seven – Violation of the Eighth Amendment City of Clanton CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions incorporate by reference the previous answers and denials as if fully stated herein. 323-324. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 325. The Eighth Amendment speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is denied. The remaining allegations of the paragraph are denied. 22 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 23 of 34 326. Alabama Code Section 13A-5-12(a)(3) and Section 15-22-54(a) speak for themselves and any characterization thereof is denied. The remaining allegations of this paragraph is denied. 327. Alabama Code Section 15-18-62 speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is denied. The remaining allegations of this paragraph is denied. 328. Alabama Code Section 15-18-62 speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is denied. The remaining allegations of this paragraph is denied. 329. Rule 26.11 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is denied. The remaining allegations of this paragraph is denied. 330-331. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 332-334. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 23 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 24 of 34 335-337. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. Count Eight – Violation of the Eighth Amendment by JCS CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions incorporate by reference the previous answers and denials as if fully stated herein. 338-339. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 340. The Eighth Amendment speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is denied. The remaining allegations of the paragraph are denied. 341. Alabama Code Section 13A-5-12(a)(3) and Section 15-22-54(a) speak for themselves and any characterization thereof is denied. The remaining allegations of this paragraph is denied. 342. Alabama Code Section 15-18-62 speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is denied. The remaining allegations of this paragraph is denied. 24 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 25 of 34 343. Alabama Code Section 15-18-62 speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is denied. The remaining allegations of this paragraph is denied. 344-353. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. Count Nine – Denial of Equal Protection City of Clanton CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions incorporate by reference the previous answers and denials as if fully stated herein. 354. No response is due from CHC Companies or Correct Care Solutions to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions deny the allegations of this paragraph. 355. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 356. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations, so the allegations are denied. 25 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 26 of 34 357. No response is due from CHC Companies or Correct Care Solutions to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions deny the allegations of this paragraph. 358. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. 359-361. No response is due from CHC Companies or Correct Care Solutions to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions deny the allegations of this paragraph. 362-364. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. Count Ten – Violation of Equal Protection JCS CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions incorporate by reference the previous answers and denials as if fully stated herein. 365-378. Denied as to CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions lack knowledge or information 26 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 27 of 34 sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, so those allegations are denied. Count Eleven – Declaratory and Injunctive Relief JCS and Clanton 379-399. This count was dismissed by the Court and no response is required. See Docs. 100-101. General Denial CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions deny any factual, legal or mixed allegations in the Second Amended and Restated Complaint not specifically admitted in this answer. Affirmative Defenses 1. The Second Amended and Restated Complaint and each claim therein fail to state claims upon which relief can be granted. 2. Plaintiffs failed to state injuries or damages caused by CHC Companies and/or Correct Care Solutions which violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. 3. Plaintiffs failed to fulfill conditions precedent to bringing suit against CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. 4. Some or all of the Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations, waiver, estoppel, laches, acquiescence, and accord and satisfaction. 5. The claims are barred by untimely or late notice. 27 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 28 of 34 6. Plaintiffs’ alleged damages were caused by their failure to mitigate those damages through the exercise of reasonable diligence. 7. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions plead set-off and recoupment. 8. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions plead the doctrine of unclean hands. 9. The Plaintiffs failed to join indispensable parties, including, but not limited to, the State of Alabama. 10. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions plead qualified, judicial, and/or discretionary function immunity. 11. Plaintiffs are guilty of negligence, wantonness, recklessness and intentional acts or criminal acts which proximately caused or contributed to the injuries or damages claimed. 12. Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed in there is no evidence of a policy or practice adopted by CHC Companies and/or Correct Care Solutions which violate the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights nor does CHC Companies or Correct Care Solutions have a policy or custom which is unconstitutional. 13. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions deny any guilt or wrongful conduct giving rise to the stated cause(s) of action in the Complaint. 28 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 29 of 34 14. Plaintiffs’ claims for the recovery or punitive damages are barred by Ala. Code § 6-11-27. 15. Plaintiffs are not entitled to punitive damages and that the award of punitive damages would violate the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eleventh, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and Article 1 §§ 6, 10, 11, 15, 22, 35, 36, and 43 of the Constitution of Alabama (1901). 16. Plaintiffs’ Second Amended and Restated Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for punitive damages. 17. Plaintiffs’ claims for the recovery of punitive damages are barred by Ala. Code §§ 6-11-20, et seq., and § 11-93-2. 18. Unless expressly admitted, CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions deny each allegation in the Second Amended and Restated Complaint and demand strict proof thereof. 19. CHC Companies, Inc. and Correct Care Solutions deny that they owed any duty to the Plaintiffs. 20. The Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, resulted from a superceding, intervening cause and not by any act or omission of CHC Companies and/or Correct Care Solutions. 21. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions plead not guilty. 22. Plaintiffs lack standing to assert some or all of the claims. 29 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 30 of 34 23. This lawsuit is not manageable as a class action. 24. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions deny that there are common questions of law and fact affecting members of the purported class. 25. Plaintiffs’ and the purported class members’ claims are barred in whole or in part by consent. 26. Plaintiffs and the purported class members either pled or were found guilty of all offenses leading to their probation; therefore, any of Plaintiffs’ and purported class members’ claims originating from facts or circumstances related to their probation lack merit and are barred. 27. Plaintiffs’ and the purported class members’ injuries, if any, were caused solely by acts or omissions of persons or entities other than CHC Companies and/or Correct Care Solutions who are not and were not employees or agents of CHC Companies and/or Correct Care Solutions and whose acts or omissions CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions are not responsible and which did not occur in connection with direct or indirect contractual relationship with CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions. 28. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Younger abstention doctrine. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 30 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 31 of 34 29. CHC Companies’ and Correct Care Solutions’s actions or inactions are not the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ or the purported class members’ alleged damages. 30. Plaintiffs and the purported class members have failed to show the likelihood of irreparable harm. 31. Plaintiffs failed to meet conditions precedent to bring this lawsuit. 32. There is no affirmative link or causal connection between any of CHC Companies’s and Correct Care Solutions’s alleged policies, customs, or practices and Plaintiffs’ and the purported class members’ alleged injuries or damages. 33. This action may not be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 34. Plaintiffs and the purported class cannot satisfy the prerequisites for class certification and therefore cannot represent the interest of others. 35. This lawsuit cannot be maintained as a class action because individual questions of law and fact predominate, including, but not limited to, each person’s alleged damages are different and subject to different defenses and mitigating circumstances. 36. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions deny that a class action is superior to all available methods for a fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. 31 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 32 of 34 37. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions deny that there are common questions of law and fact affecting members of the purported class. 38. Certification of the class, as applied to the facts and circumstances of this case, would constitute a denial of CHC Companies’s and Correct Care Solutions’s due process rights, both substantive and procedural, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Alabama Constitution of 1901. 39. The voluntary payment doctrine bars Plaintiffs’ claims and the class action claims. 40. Plaintiffs and the purported class members’ cannot prove the elements of any of their claims. 41. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions deny that they claims of the individual Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the proposed class and that the defenses to the action are also on grounds generally applicable to the proposed class. 42. Plaintiffs willfully failed to comply with the terms of probation, even when able to do so. 43. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions adopt and incorporate by reference as if fully set forth herein all affirmative defenses asserted by other defendants in this case, to the extent that those affirmative defenses are not 32 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 33 of 34 inconsistent with the answers, denials, and affirmative defenses asserted by these defendants. 44. CHC Companies and Correct Care Solutions reserve the right to assert any further additional defenses that may be developed during the course of discovery in this matter. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DATED: May 9, 2017/s/F. Lane Finch, Jr. F. Lane Finch, Jr. (ASB-0027-I58F) Brian C. Richardson (ASB-5241-H14U) Attorneys for CHC Companies, LLC and Correct Care Solutions, LLC OF COUNSEL: Swift, Currie, McGhee and Hiers, LLP 2 North 20th Street, Suite 1405 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-2401 Facsimile: (205) 244-1373 lane.finch@swiftcurrie.com brian.richardson@swiftcurrie.com 33 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 106 Filed 05/09/17 Page 34 of 34 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 9, 2017, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System which will send notification of filing to the following attorneys of record: William M. Dawson, Jr. L. Conrad Anderson, IV DAWSON LAW OFFICE Gregory C. Cook 1736 Oxmoor Road Ginny Willcox Leavens Birmingham, AL 35209 Chase T. Espy Christopher Knox Friedman G. Daniel Evans Will Tankersley, Jr. Alexandria Parrish BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP Maurine C. Evans 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 1500 THE EVANS LAW FIRM, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 1736 Oxmoor Road, Suite 101 Birmingham, AL 35209 Richard W. Kinney James W. Porter, II Joseph M. McGuire PORTER, PORTER & HASSINGER McGuire & Associates, LLC P.O. Box 128 31 Clayton Street Birmingham, AL 35201 Montgomery, AL 36104 Matthew S. Swerdlin 1736 Oxmoor Road, Suite 101 Homewood, AL 35209 Larry S. Logsdon Michael L. Jackson Wesley K. Winborn WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF & BRANDT, LLC P. O. Box 530910 Birmingham, AL 35253/s/F. Lane Finch, Jr. OF COUNSEL 34

ANSWER to {{74}} Amended Complaint, by Judicial Correction Services, LLC.

Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 1 of 69 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA CANDICE CHAPMAN, MICHAEL) LITTLEFIELD, STEDMAN KLINE,) DEANGELO BARNETT, and TRACY) DUBOSE, individually and on behalf) of a class of all others similarly) situated,)) Plaintiffs,))) v.) Case No. 2:15-CV-0125-RCL) THE CITY OF CLANTON; JUDICIAL) CORRECTION SERVICES, LLC;) CHC COMPANIES, INC.; and) CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC,)) Defendants.) Defendants Judicial Corrections Services’ Answer to the Second Amended and Restated Complaint (Doc. 74) Defendant Judicial Correction Services ("JCS") hereby answers the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended and Restated Complaint. In asserting the following defenses, JCS does not assume any burden of proof that would otherwise be imposed on the Plaintiffs or the proposed class of plaintiffs. 1 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 2 of 69 JCS responds to the corresponding enumerated paragraphs of the Second Amended and Restated Complaint (Doc. 74) (the "Complaint") as follows: Jurisdiction 1. JCS admits this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction, but it does not agree with all of the bases cited by paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and it denies the Plaintiffs (or any class) are entitled to any relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988, or under any other statutory provision or theory of liability. 2. JCS admits this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction, but it does not agree with all of the bases cited by paragraph 2 of the Complaint, and it denies the Plaintiffs (or any class) are entitled to any relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1343 or under any other statutory provision or theory of liability. 3. JCS denies that Plaintiffs (or any class) are entitled to declaratory relief under the cited statutes or otherwise. 4. JCS admits that venue is proper but do not agree with all of the bases cited by the Plaintiff. Parties to the Complaint 5. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny this allegation; therefore it is denied. 6. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny this allegation; therefore it is denied. 2 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 3 of 69 7. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny this allegation; therefore it is denied. 8. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny this allegation; therefore it is denied. 9. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny this allegation; therefore it is denied. 10. No response is due from JCS to the alleged classes the individual Plaintiff seeks to represent; but to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations in paragraph no. 10 and denies that this case is appropriate for class certification. 11. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny this allegation; therefore it is denied. 12. JCS admits that it is a Delaware business entity, that it was formerly known as Judicial Correction Services, Inc., and that did business in Alabama but is no longer doing business in Alabama. The remaining allegations of paragraph 12 are denied. 13. Denied. Also, in this answer, "JCS" refers only to Judicial Correction Services, LLC, not CHC Companies. 14. Denied. Also, in this answer, "JCS" refers only to Judicial Correction Services, LLC, not Correct Care Solutions. 3 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 4 of 69 Facts 15. Denied. 16. JCS admits that it operated a for-profit enterprise providing probation services in Alabama, that JCS provided probation services in more than 100 cities and towns in Alabama, and that JCS provided probation services to Clanton. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied. 17. Denied. 18. Denied. 19. No response is due from JCS for this paragraph as it is a legal conclusion; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 19. 20. JCS admits that paragraph 20 quotes a part of the agreement between JCS and Clanton. 21. JCS admits that the agreement was approved and that JCS provided services to Clanton under the agreement for a period of time. JCS acknowledges that the contract with Clanton was entered on February 9, 2009, and that the effective date of termination was May 27, 2015. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the additional allegations of paragraph no. 18; therefore those allegations are denied. 4 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 5 of 69 22. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 19. 23. Denied. 24. JCS admits that it provided services to Clanton for a period of time and charged fines and fees to probationers in accordance with JCS’s contract with Clanton. The remaining allegations of paragraph 24 are denied. 25. JCS admits that it provided services to Clanton for a period of time and utilized its "Probation Tracker" software in the provision of these services. The remaining allegations of paragraph 25 are denied. 26. JCS admits that its training manual contained instructions to employees on how to use "Probation Tracker" software. JCS also admits that this paragraph quotes from certain attached documents. The remaining allegations of paragraph 26 are denied. 27. JCS admits that it would inform the court about the status of probationers’ compliance with court orders as required by JCS’s contract with Clanton. The remaining allegations of paragraph 27 are denied. 28. Denied. 29. Denied. 30. Denied. 5 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 6 of 69 31. Denied. 32. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph as it is a legal conclusion; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 32. 33. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph as it is a legal conclusion; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 33. 34. Denied. 35. Denied. 36. Denied. 37. Denied. 38. Denied. 39. Denied. 40. Denied. 41. Denied. 42. JCS admits that it is not responsible for determining whether an individual is legally indigent. JCS denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 42. 43. JCS admits that it is not responsible for determining whether an individual is legally indigent. JCS denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 43. 6 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 7 of 69 44. Denied. 45. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 45. 46. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 46. The Plaintiffs 47. JCS admits that the Plaintiffs were assigned to JCS under a probation order issued by the Clanton Municipal Court. JCS denies the remaining allegations of paragraph no. 47 and particularly denies that Plaintiffs’ claims should be certified as a class action. Candice Chapman 48. JCS admits that Candice Chapman is over the age of 19 and that she at least at one time lived in Chilton County, Alabama. 49. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 50. JCS admits the allegations of paragraph 50 of the complaint. 7 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 8 of 69 51. JCS admits that Chapman was placed on JCS-supervised probation by the Clanton Municipal Court. JCS admits that it charged Chapman the fees ordered by the Clanton Municipal Court. The remaining allegations of paragraph 51 are denied. 52. JCS admits that it charged Chapman the fees ordered by the Clanton Municipal Court. The remaining allegations of paragraph 52 are denied. 53. JCS admits that it charged Chapman the fees ordered by the Clanton Municipal Court. The remaining allegations of paragraph 53 are denied. 54. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 55. JCS admits Chapman’s ex-husband paid $40.00 to JCS on May 27, 2014. The remaining allegations of paragraph 55 are denied. 56. JCS admits that Chapman paid JCS $100.00 on May 30, 2014, and that JCS’s collection of fines and fees was done in accordance with its contract with Clanton. The remaining allegations of paragraph 56 are denied. 57. JCS admits Chapman paid JCS $40.00 on June 27, 2014. The remaining allegations of paragraph 57 are denied. 8 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 9 of 69 58. JCS admits that Chapman was adjudicated as guilty of theft of property on July 15, 2014, and that the court imposed a fine of $250 and court costs of $251. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 59. JCS admits that Chapman was placed on JCS-supervised probation by the Clanton Municipal Court. The remaining allegations of paragraph 59 are denied. 60. JCS admits that Chapman was placed on JCS-supervised probation by the Clanton Municipal Court. JCS admits that it charged Chapman the fees ordered by the Clanton Municipal Court. The remaining allegations of paragraph 60 are denied. 61. JCS admits that it charged Chapman the fees ordered by the Clanton Municipal Court. The remaining allegations of paragraph 53 are denied. 62. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 63. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 64. Denied. 65. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 9 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 10 of 69 66. JCS admits that it reported to the court regarding Chapman’s non-compliance with her court-ordered probation, which it was required to do under its contract with Clanton, on or around August 26, 2014. JCS admits that the amounts stated in paragraph 66 are the amounts reported in the Petition for Revocation and Statement of Delinquency Charges. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 66, therefore they are denied. 67. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 68. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 69. Denied. 70. Denied. 71. JCS admits that it had no legal duty to evaluate Chapman’s financial situation or provide her with an attorney. The remaining allegations of paragraph 71 are denied. 72. Denied. Michael Littlefield 73. JCS admits that Michael Littlefield at least at one time was a resident of Clanton, Alabama. 10 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 11 of 69 74. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 75. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 76. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 77. JCS admits that Littlefield was ordered by the court to JCS-supervised probation on June 29, 2010. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 77; therefore they are denied. 78. JCS admits that the court ordered Littlefield to pay JCS certain fines and fees. The remaining allegations of paragraph 78 are denied. 79. JCS admits that the court ordered Littlefield to pay JCS certain fines and fees. The remaining allegations of paragraph 79 are denied. 80. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 81. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 82. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 11 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 12 of 69 83. Denied. 1 84. Denied. 85. Denied. 86. Denied. 87. JCS admits that the fines and court costs alleged are correct, but the court also imposed a "jail fee" of $69. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 88. JCS admits Littlefield was ordered to probation with JCS by the court. JCS further admits that it charged Littlefield the fines and fees ordered by the court. The remaining allegations of paragraph 88 are denied. 89. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 90. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 1 JCS addressed the proceedings of June 29, 2010, in its response to paragraph 77 of the Complaint. JCS cannot be sure from the content of this allegation which other probation Plaintiff is referring to in this paragraph. Accordingly, JCS is also without sufficient information regarding paragraphs 84-86, which relate to paragraph 83, and denies the allegations of those paragraphs accordingly. 12 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 13 of 69 91. JCS admits that it reported to the court regarding Littlefield’s non-compliance with his court-ordered probation, which it was required to do under its contract with Clanton, on or around November 24, 2014. JCS admits that the Petition for Revocation of Probation and Statement of Delinquency Charges reported the amounts alleged in paragraph 91, but denies that only $987 was imposed by the court, as Plaintiffs have not included a "jail fee" of $69 imposed by the court. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 91, therefore they are denied. 92. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 93. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 94. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 95. Denied. 96. Denied. 97. Denied. 98. Denied. 13 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 14 of 69 Stedman Kine 99. JCS admits that at least at some point, Kine was a resident of Chilton County, Alabama. 100. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 101. JCS admits Kine appeared in court on August 2, 2011, that he was not given any jail time, and that the fine imposed was $150. JCS denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 101. 102. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 103. JCS admits that Kine was ordered to JCS-supervised probation by the court and that the court ordered Kine to pay certain fines and fees. 104. JCS admits that it charged Kine the fines and fees ordered by the court. JCS denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 104. 105. Denied. 106. JCS admits that it reported Kine’s non-compliance with court orders to the court as it was required to do under its contract with Clanton. The remaining allegations of paragraph 105 are denied. 107. Denied. 108. Denied. 14 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 15 of 69 109. JCS admits that Kine’s mother paid JCS $250.00 on September 14, 2011. The remaining allegations of paragraph 109 are denied. 110. JCS admits that it charged fines and fees to Kine in accordance with JCS’s contract with Clanton. 111. JCS admits that it reported Kine’s non-compliance with court orders to the court as it was required to do under its contract with Clanton. The remaining allegations of paragraph 111 are denied. 112. JCS admits that it reported Kine’s non-compliance with court orders to the court as it was required to do under its contract with Clanton. The remaining allegations of paragraph 112 are denied. 113. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 114. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 115. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 116. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 117. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 15 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 16 of 69 118. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 119. JCS admits that Kine appeared in court on May 14, 2013, and that the court imposed a fine of $250 and court costs of $251. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 120. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 121. JCS admits that the court ordered Kine to JCS-supervised probation on May 14, 2013. The remaining allegations of paragraph 121 are denied. 122. JCS admits that it charged Kine the fines and fees ordered by the court. The remaining allegations of paragraph 122 are denied. 123. Denied. 124. JCS admits that it followed its procedures with respect to Kine’s probation. JCS also admits that Kine was placed on warrant status on July 23, 2013. JCS denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 124. 125. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 126. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 16 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 17 of 69 127. Admitted. 128. JCS admits that the fine and court cost amounts alleged in paragraph 128 are correct. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 129. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 130. JCS admits that the court ordered Kine to JCS-supervised probation on September 17, 2013. The remaining allegations of paragraph 130 are denied. 131. JCS admits that Kine attended his appointment on October 7, 2013, and informed JCS that he had just been released from jail. JCS also admits that upon receiving this information, JCS did not require Kine to pay anything at this appointment and reset his appointment the following week with instructions to pay $25.00 at this next appointment. JCS denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 131. 132. Denied. 133. JCS admits that Kine paid JCS $10.00 on October 16, 2013. JCS also admits that it set Kine’s next appointment for October 18, 2013, with instructions to pay $135.00 due to Kine’s failure to comply with the court ordered instructions regarding what Kine was to pay per month. 134. Admitted. 17 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 18 of 69 135. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 136. Admitted. 137. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 138. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 139. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 140. JCS admits the fines and court costs imposed for the offenses described in paragraph 139 totaled $1,989. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 141. JCS admits that Kine was ordered to JCS-supervised probation by the court. The remaining allegations of paragraph 141 are denied. 142. JCS admits that it charged Kine the fees ordered by the court. The remaining allegations of paragraph 142 are denied. 143. Denied. 144. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 18 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 19 of 69 145. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 146. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 147. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 148. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 149. Denied. 150. Denied. 151. Denied. 152. Denied. Deangelo Barnett 153. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 154. JCS admits Barnett was in court on September 21, 2010, and that the court imposed fines and court costs for the amount stated in paragraph 154. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 155. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 19 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 20 of 69 156. JCS admits that Barnett was ordered to JCS-supervised probation by the court. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 156; therefore, they are denied. 157. JCS admits Barnett signed a probation order. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 158. JCS admits that it charged Barnett the fines and fees ordered by the court. The remaining allegations of paragraph 158 are denied. 159. Denied. 160. JCS admits that Barnett paid $145.00 on November 3, 2010. JCS denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 160. 161. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph relating to how much Mr. Barnett had to work to make a certain amount of money; therefore they are denied. JCS denies the remaining allegations 162. JCS admits that it was required to report non-compliance with court orders to the court. JCS also admits that JCS would also inform the court if a probationer brought his or her account into compliance before a court hearing. JCS denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 162. 20 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 21 of 69 163. JCS admits Barnett failed to appear at the January 5, 2011 hearing. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 164. JCS admits that Clanton issued a warrant for Barnett’s arrest. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 165. JCS admits Barnett was arrested on June 29, 2011. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 166. JCS admits it was paid $100 on June 29, 2011. JCS admits Barnett paid his remaining balance directly to the City of Clanton. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 167. Denied. 168. Admitted (except for "once again," as this was the first time before the court on those charges). 169. JCS admits that Barnett was ordered to JCS-supervised probation by the court again on July 2, 2013. JCS also admits that the court ordered Barnett to pay certain fines and fees to JCS. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 169; therefore, they are denied. 21 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 22 of 69 170. Denied. 171. JCS admits Barnett was charged with driving with a revoked license and driving without a seatbelt in January 2014. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 172. JCS admits that Barnett was ordered to JCS-supervised probation by the court on February 2, 2014. JCS also admits that the court ordered Barnett to pay certain fines and fees to JCS. JCS denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 172. 173. JCS admits the fines and court costs alleged in paragraph 173 are correct. JCS denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 173. 174. JCS admits that Barnett made some payments on his account from July 2013 to June 2014. JCS denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 174. 175. JCS admits that Barnett made payments but that he did not pay all fines and fees ordered by the court. JCS admits that it collected and applied fees in accordance with its contract with Clanton. JCS denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 175. 176. JCS admits that Barnett paid $40.00 on June 27, 2014. JCS denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 176. 22 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 23 of 69 177. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 178. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 179. Denied. 180. Denied. Tracy Dubose 181. JCS admits that at least at some time Dubose was a resident of Clanton, Alabama. 182. JCS admits that Dubose was placed on JCS probation on May 21, 2013, and that she reported to JCS that her employment was "disability." JCS further admits that the court ordered her to pay the fines and court costs alleged in paragraph 182 after she was found guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia. JCS denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 182. 183. JCS admits that it charged Dubose court-ordered fines and fees in accordance with JCS’s contract with Clanton. The remaining allegations of paragraph 183 are denied. 184. JCS is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph; therefore they are denied. 185. Denied. 23 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 24 of 69 186. JCS admits that Dubose made payments against her account from June 3, 2013, to June 6, 2014. JCS also admits that it would apply these payments in accordance with its contract with Clanton. JCS denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 186. 187. Denied. 188. Denied. 189. Denied. 190. Denied. 191. Denied. Plaintiffs’ Class Allegations 192. No response is due from JCS to the alleged classes the individual Plaintiffs seeks to represent; however to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations in this paragraph and deny that this case is appropriate for class certification. 193. No response is due from JCS to the alleged classes the individual Plaintiffs seeks to represent; however to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations in this paragraph and deny that this case is appropriate for class certification. 194. No response is due from JCS to the alleged classes the individual Plaintiffs seeks to represent; however to the extent a response is due, JCS 24 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 25 of 69 denies the allegations in this paragraph and deny that this case is appropriate for class certification. 195. No response is due from JCS to the alleged classes the individual Plaintiffs seeks to represent; however to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations in this paragraph and deny that this case is appropriate for class certification. 196. No response is due from JCS to the alleged classes the individual Plaintiffs seeks to represent; however to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations in this paragraph and deny that this case is appropriate for class certification. 197. No response is due from JCS to the alleged classes the individual Plaintiffs seeks to represent; however to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations in this paragraph and deny that this case is appropriate for class certification. 198. No response is due from JCS to the alleged classes the individual Plaintiffs seeks to represent; however to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations in this paragraph and deny that this case is appropriate for class certification. 199. No response is due from JCS to the alleged classes the individual Plaintiffs seeks to represent; however to the extent a response is due, JCS 25 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 26 of 69 denies the allegations in this paragraph and deny that this case is appropriate for class certification. 200. No response is due from JCS to the alleged classes the individual Plaintiffs seeks to represent; however to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations in this paragraph and deny that this case is appropriate for class certification. 201. No response is due from JCS to the alleged classes the individual Plaintiffs seeks to represent; however to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations in this paragraph and deny that this case is appropriate for class certification. Count One Denial of Due Process Against the City of Clanton JCS incorporates by reference the previous responses and denials of the previous paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 202. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 202. 203. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 203. 26 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 27 of 69 204. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 204. 205. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 205. 206. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 206. 207. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 207. 208. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 208. 209. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 209. 210. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 210. 27 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 28 of 69 211. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 211. 212. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 212. 213. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 213. 214. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 214. 215. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 215. 216. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 216. 217. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 217. 28 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 29 of 69 218. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 218. 219. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 219. 220. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 220. 221. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 221. 222. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 222. 223. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 223. 224. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 224. 29 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 30 of 69 225. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 225. 226. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 226. 227. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 227. 228. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 228. 229. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 229. 230. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 230. 231. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 231. 30 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 31 of 69 232. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 232. 233. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 233. 234. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 234. 235. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 235. Count Two Denial of Due Process Against JCS JCS incorporates by reference the previous answers and denials of the previous paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 236. Denied. 237. JCS admits that it contracted with numerous cities and towns throughout Alabama, including Clanton. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. 31 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 32 of 69 238. JCS admits that it contracted with numerous cities and towns throughout Alabama. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. 239. Denied. 240. Denied. 241. JCS admits that paragraph 241 quotes the contract between JCS and Clanton. 242. Denied. 243. Denied. 244. Denied. 245. Denied. 246. Denied. 247. Denied. 248. Denied. 249. Denied. 250. JCS admits that it did not have the responsibility or the authority to make indigency determinations. The remaining allegations of paragraph 250 are denied. 251. Denied. 252. Denied. 253. Denied. 32 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 33 of 69 254. Denied. 255. Denied. 256. Denied. 257. Denied. 258. Denied. 259. Denied. 260. Denied. 261. Denied. 262. Denied. 263. Denied. 264. Denied. 265. Denied. 266. Denied. 267. Denied. 268. Denied. Count Three Violation of the Fourth Amendment by the City of Clanton JCS incorporates by reference the previous responses and denials of the previous paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 33 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 34 of 69 269. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 269. 270. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 270. 271. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 271. 272. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 272. 273. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 273. 274. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 274. 275. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 275. 34 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 35 of 69 276. Denied. 277. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 277. 278. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 278. 279. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 279. Count Four Violation of the Fourth Amendment by JCS JCS incorporates by reference the previous responses and denials of the previous paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 280. Denied. 281. Denied. 282. Denied. 283. Denied. 284. Denied. 285. Denied. 35 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 36 of 69 286. This paragraph is an allegation of law, not fact, and no response by JCS is required. But to the extent a response is required, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 286. 287. Denied. 288. Denied. 289. Denied. 290. Denied. Count Five Violation of the Sixth Amendment by City of Clanton JCS incorporates by reference the previous responses and denials of the previous paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 291. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 291. 292. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 292. 293. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 293. 36 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 37 of 69 294. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 294. 295. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 295. 296. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 296. 297. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 297. 298. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 298. 299. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 299. 300. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 300. 37 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 38 of 69 301. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 301. 302. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 302. 303. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 303. 304. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 304. 305. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 305. 306. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 306. 307. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 307. 38 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 39 of 69 Count Six Violation of the Sixth Amendment by JCS JCS incorporates by reference the previous responses and denials of the previous paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 308. Denied. 309. Denied. 310. Denied. 311. Denied. 312. Denied. 313. JCS admits that it had no responsibility to determine indigency. The remaining allegations of paragraph 313 are denied. 314. Denied. 315. Denied. 316. Denied. 317. Denied. 318. Denied. 319. Denied. 320. Denied. 321. Denied. 322. Denied. 39 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 40 of 69 Count Seven Violation of the Eighth Amendment by City of Clanton JCS incorporates by reference the previous responses and denials of the previous paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 323. No response is due from JCS to the allegations contained in this paragraph; however to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 323. 324. No response is due from JCS to the allegations contained in this paragraph; however to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 324. 325. No response is due from JCS to the allegations contained in this paragraph; however to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 325. 326. No response is due from JCS to the allegations contained in this paragraph; however to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 326. 327. No response is due from JCS to the allegations contained in this paragraph; however to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 327. 40 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 41 of 69 328. No response is due from JCS to the allegations contained in this paragraph; however to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 328. 329. No response is due from JCS to the allegations contained in this paragraph; however to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 329. 330. No response is due from JCS to the allegations contained in this paragraph; however to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 330. 331. No response is due from JCS to the allegations contained in this paragraph; however to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 331. 332. No response is due from JCS to the allegations contained in this paragraph; however to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 332. 333. No response is due from JCS to the allegations contained in this paragraph; however to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 333. 334. No response is due from JCS to the allegations contained in this paragraph; however to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 334. 41 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 42 of 69 335. No response is due from JCS to the allegations contained in this paragraph; however to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 335. 336. No response is due from JCS to the allegations contained in this paragraph; however to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 336. 337. No response is due from JCS to the allegations contained in this paragraph; however to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 337. Count Eight Violation of the Eighth Amendment by JCS JCS incorporates by reference the previous responses and denials of the previous paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 338. Denied. 339. Denied. 340. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent this paragraph implies that JCS violated the Eight Amendment, JCS denies the allegations of this paragraph. 341. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 341. 42 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 43 of 69 342. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 342. 343. Denied. 344. Denied. 345. Denied. 346. Denied. 347. Denied. 348. Denied. 349. Denied. 350. Denied. 351. Denied. 352. Denied. 353. Denied. Count Nine Denial of Equal Protection by City of Clanton JCS incorporates by reference the previous responses and denials of the previous paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 354. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 354. 43 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 44 of 69 355. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 355. 356. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 356. 357. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 357. 358. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 358. 359. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 359. 360. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 360. 361. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 361. 44 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 45 of 69 362. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 362. 363. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 363. 364. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 364. Count Ten Denial of Equal Protection by JCS JCS incorporates by reference the previous responses and denials of the previous paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 365. Denied. 366. Denied. 367. Denied. 368. Denied. 369. Denied. 370. Denied. 371. Denied. 372. Denied. 45 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 46 of 69 373. Denied. 374. Denied. 375. Denied. 376. Denied. 377. Denied. 378. Denied. Count Eleven Declaratory and Injunctive Relief JCS incorporates by reference the previous responses and denials of the previous paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 379. Denied. 380. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 380. 381. Denied. 382. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 382. 383. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 383. 46 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 47 of 69 384. Denied. 385. Denied. 386. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph no. 386. 387. Denied. 388. Denied. 389. Denied. 390. JCS admits the contract was not competitively bid but denies it was required to be competitively bid. 391. Denied. 392. Denied. 393. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 393. 394. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 394. 395. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 395. 47 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 48 of 69 396. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 396. 397. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 397. 398. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 398. 399. No response is due from JCS to the allegations in this paragraph; however, to the extent a response is due, JCS denies the allegations of paragraph 399. JCS denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief requested in the request for relief following paragraph no. 399 or otherwise sought in the Second Amended and Restated Complaint. JCS demands a judgment in its favor on all counts of the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended and Restated Complaint, including an award of all costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with this action. General Denial JCS denies any factual, legal, or mixed allegations in the Second Amended and Restated Complaint not specifically admitted in this Answer. 48 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 49 of 69 Defenses First Defense Some or all of the counts of the Complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Second Defense Some or all of the claims in the Complaint are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Third Defense Plaintiffs’ claims are moot, are not ripe, or fail for lack of justiciable controversy. Fourth Defense JCS disputes each and every item of damages and relief claimed in the Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. Fifth Defense JCS owed no legal duty to the Plaintiffs or purported class members under common law, statutes, or the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Alabama. Sixth Defense The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for punitive damages. 49 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 50 of 69 Seventh Defense To the extent that Plaintiffs plead state-law claims, JCS pleads that the Plaintiffs failed to file a Notice of Claim and Demand as required by Alabama Code §1-47-23 and §11-47-192. Eighth Defense The defenses of release, waiver, ratification, estoppel, judicial estoppel, in pari delicto, payment, collateral estoppel, res judicata, and accord and satisfaction bar Plaintiffs’ claims and the class action claims. Ninth Defense The defenses of laches and acquiescence bar Plaintiffs’ claims and the class action claims. Tenth Defense The defenses of set-off and recoupment bar Plaintiffs’ claims and the class action claims. Eleventh Defense The doctrine of unclean hands bars Plaintiffs’ claims and the class action claims. Twelfth Defense Plaintiffs have failed to join indispensable parties, including, but not limited to, the State of Alabama. 50 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 51 of 69 Thirteenth Defense The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fourteenth Defense Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Younger abstention doctrine. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Fifteenth Defense JCS pleads all available doctrines of immunity, including but not limited to absolute quasi-judicial immunity and qualified immunity. Sixteenth Defense JCS denies that the facts of this case reach the threshold for the imposition of punitive damages. Furthermore, with regard to the claim for punitive damages, JCS pleads the following: (a) Plaintiffs have failed to present a valid claim for the recovery of punitive damages, and JCS denies any conduct that could warrant the submission of the issue of punitive damages to a jury or the imposition of punitive damages; (b) Plaintiffs’ and the purported class members’ claims for punitive damages violate JCS’s right to equal process and due process of laws under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States; 51 (c) Any award of punitive damages in this case would be in violation of the constitutional safeguards provided to the defendant under the Constitution of the United States of America and, to the extent based on state law, the Constitution of the State of Alabama. (d) No punitive damages are warranted or allowable that would exceed comparable maximums established for criminal fines. (e) Punitive damages cannot be sustained because of the lack of clarity in standards for awarding punitive damages. (f) Any claim for punitive damages, on its face and/or as applied in this case, is in violation of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; of the right to counsel provided by the 6th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; of the right to trial by jury of the 7th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; of the proportionality principles contained in the 8th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and (to the extent Plaintiffs seek punitive damages based on state law) Article 1, Sections 1, 2, 6, 11, 13, 15, 27, and 35 of the Constitution of the State of Alabama of 1901, and is improper under the common law and public policies of the State of Alabama and under applicable court rules and statutes for the following reasons, jointly and separately: 52 (i) There are no standards provided by law for the imposition of punitive damages and, therefore, the Defendants have not been put on notice and given the opportunity to anticipate punitive liability and/or the potential size of the award and to modify or conform its conduct accordingly; (ii) The procedures to be followed would permit an award of punitive damages against the Defendants upon the satisfaction of a burden of persuasion (standard of proof) less than that applicable to the imposition of criminal sanctions for equal culpability; (iii) The procedures to be followed could permit the award of multiple punitive damages for the same act or omission; (iv) There are no provisions or standards for clear and consistent appellate review of any award of punitive damages against the Defendants under present law; (v) The standards of conduct upon which punitive damages are sought against the Defendants are vague and ambiguous; (vi) The procedures used by courts and the guidelines given to the jurors, jointly and severally, are vague and ambiguous; (vii) The procedures used by courts and the guidelines given to the jurors, jointly and severally, are vague and 53 ambiguous and, therefore, impermissibly allow jurors broad, unlimited, and undefined power to make determinations on their notions of what the law should be instead of what it is; (viii) The procedures under which punitive damages are awarded and the instructions used, jointly and severally, are vague and ambiguous and, therefore, fail to eliminate the effects of, and to guard against, impermissible juror passion and prejudice; (ix) Present law does not provide for sufficiently objective and specific standards to be used by the jury in its deliberations on whether to award punitive damages and, if so, on the amount to be awarded; (x) Present law does not provide a meaningful opportunity for challenging the rational basis for, and any excessiveness of, any award of punitive damages; (xi) Present law does not provide for adequate and independent review by the trial court and the appellate court of the imposition of punitive damages by a jury or of the amount of any punitive damages awarded by a jury; 54 (xii) Present procedures fail to provide a constitutionally reasonable limit on the amount of any punitive damages award against the defendant; (xiii) Present procedures may permit the admission of evidence relative to punitive damages in the same proceeding during which liability is determined; (xiv) Present procedures permit the imposition of joint and several judgments against multiple co-defendants for different acts or degrees of wrongdoing or culpability; and (xv) An award of punitive damages would compensate Plaintiffs or a purported plaintiff class for elements of damage not otherwise recognized under law. (g) To the extent Plaintiffs seek punitive damages based on state law, Plaintiff’s and the purported class members’ claims for the recovery of punitive damages are barred by Ala. Code §§ 6-11-20 et seq., and § 11-93-2. (h) To the extent Plaintiffs seek punitive damages based on state law, Plaintiffs’ and the purported class members’ claims for the recovery of punitive damages are barred by Ala. Code § 6-11-27. 55 (i) Plaintiffs’ and the purported class members’ claims for the recovery of punitive damages are in contravention of JCS’s rights under each of the following constitutional provisions: (i) Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, as an impermissible burden on interstate commerce; (ii) The Contracts Clause of Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution; (iii) The Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution; (iv) The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution; (v) The constitutional prohibition against vague and overbroad laws; (vi) The prohibition against ex post facto laws in Article I, Section 22 of the Alabama Constitution; (vii) To the extent Plaintiffs seek punitive damages based on state law, the Contracts Clause of Article I, Section 22 of the Alabama Constitution; and (viii) To the extent Plaintiffs seek punitive damages based on state law, the Due Process Clause of Article I, Section 6 and/or 13 of the Alabama Constitution. 56 (j) An award of punitive damages in this circumstances of this case would clearly be violative of JCS’s due process rights as embraced by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and, to the extent Plaintiffs seek punitive damages based on state law, by the due process clause of Article I, Section 6 and/or 13 of the Alabama Constitution, jointly and separately, as such award would constitute a deprivation of property without due process of law for the following reasons: (i) There is no rational relationship between the punitive damages awards and the wrongfulness of a defendant’s conduct and/or the compensatory damages awarded; (ii) No rational relationship exists between the extent of punitive damages and legitimate interests to be advanced by the government; (iii) An award of punitive damages in this case would be penal in nature and, therefore, would be violative of JCS’s constitutional rights under the United States Constitution and/or the Alabama Constitution unless JCS is granted the procedural safeguards afforded criminal defendants including, but not limited to, constitutional safeguards against self-incrimination and a heightened standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; 57 (iv) The award of punitive damages on the basis of vicarious liability for the conduct of others violates JCS’s constitutional rights. (k) The imposition of punitive damages in this case would be in denial of JCS’s right to equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 1, 6, and 22 of the Alabama Constitution. Specifically, JCS is treated differently from criminal defendants who are charged for similar or identical culpability. Alternatively, the absence of adequate and objective standards for guiding in the assessment of punitive damages fails to insure the equality of treatment between and among similarly situated civil defendants. (l) The assessment of punitive damages in this action would violate the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. (m) To the extent Plaintiffs seek punitive damages based on state law, the imposition of punitive damages in this action would violate JCS’s rights under Article I, Section 22 of the Alabama Constitution in that it would impair the contractual obligations of parties to this litigation. 58 (n) With respect to Plaintiffs’ demand for punitive damages, JCS specifically incorporates by reference any and all standards or limitations regarding the determination or enforceability of punitive damages awards which arose in the decision of BMW of North America v. Gore, 116 U.S. 1589 (1996); Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 121 S. Ct. 1678 (2001); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 123 S. Ct. 1513 (2003); and Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S. Ct. 1057 (2007). (o) To the extent that Plaintiffs’ demand for punitive damages may result in multiple punitive damages awards being assessed for the same act or omission against JCS, this award contravenes JCS’s right to due process. In addition, such awards would infringe upon JCS’s rights against double jeopardy insured by the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution and/or Article I, Section 9 of the Alabama Constitution. (p) The procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded subject civil defendants to punishment for the conduct of others through vicarious liability or through non-apportionment of damages among joint tortfeasors, in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 1 and 6 of the Alabama Constitution. 59 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 60 of 69 (q) The procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded expose civil defendants to the risk of undefinable, unlimited liability unrelated to actual loss, if any, caused by their conduct, creating a chilling effect on the defendant’s exercise of the right to a judicial resolution of this dispute. (r) To the extent Plaintiffs seek punitive damages based on state law, Plaintiffs’ and the purported class members’ claims for punitive damages is limited by the cap imposed by Ala. Code § 6-11-21. Allowing an award in excess of this legislative cap would directly contravene the express public policy of the State of Alabama. Seventeenth Defense Plaintiffs’ and the purported class members’ claims are barred in whole or in part because they have failed to mitigate their alleged damages. Eighteenth Defense Each and every action taken by JCS, separately and severely, was taken in the good faith belief that the same was legal and lawful at the time so taken. Nineteenth Defense Plaintiffs and the purported class members have failed to exhaust their state court and administrative remedies. 60 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 61 of 69 Twentieth Defense JCS denies that they violated Plaintiffs’ or the purported class members’ rights under the Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Twenty-First Defense JCS denies that they breached any duty owed to Plaintiffs or the purported class members. Twenty-Second Defense JCS’s actions or inactions are not the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ or the purported class members’ alleged damages. Twenty-Third Defense Plaintiffs and the purported class members have no clear right to the relief sought in the Complaint. Twenty-Fourth Defense Plaintiffs and the purported class members have failed to show the likelihood of irreparable harm. Twenty-Fifth Defense The issuance of an injunction would not serve the public interest. Twenty-Sixth Defense Plaintiffs and the purported class members have failed to do equity. 61 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 62 of 69 Twenty-Seventh Defense Plaintiffs have failed to meet conditions precedent to bring this lawsuit. Twenty-Eighth Defense There is no affirmative link or causal connection between any of JCS’s alleged policies, customs, or practices and Plaintiffs’ and the purported class members’ alleged injuries or damages. Twenty-Ninth Defense This action may not be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thirtieth Defense Plaintiffs and the purported class cannot satisfy the prerequisites for class certification and therefore cannot represent the interest of others. Thirty-First Defense Plaintiffs lack standing to assert some or all of their claims or Plaintiffs are not the real parties in interest. Thirty-Second Defense This lawsuit cannot be maintained as a class action because individual questions of law and fact predominate, including, but not limited to, each person’s alleged damages are different and subject to different defenses and mitigating circumstances. 62 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 63 of 69 Thirty-Third Defense JCS denies that the claims of the members of the proposed class are so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all before the Court in one lawsuit. Thirty-Forth Defense Plaintiffs are not similarly situated to the other potential members of the alleged putative class they purport to represent and thus, are inadequate representatives of the alleged putative class. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ counsel will not adequately represent the alleged putative class. Thirty-Fifth Defense Certain interests of the alleged putative class are in conflict with and antagonistic to the interests of all or certain subgroups of the members of the putative class. Thirty-Sixth Defense JCS denies that a class action is superior to all available methods for a fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Thirty-Seventh Defense This lawsuit is not manageable as a class action. 63 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 64 of 69 Thirty-Eighth Defense JCS denies that there are common questions of law and fact affecting members of the purported class. Thirty-Ninth Defense Certification of a class, as applied to the facts and circumstances of this case, would constitute a denial of JCS’s due process rights, both substantive and procedural, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Alabama Constitution of 1901. Fortieth Defense Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1984), bars Plaintiffs’ claims. Forty-First Defense JCS pleads all available affirmative defenses contained in 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e) and the limitation on attorneys’ fees contained in that section. Forty-Second Defense The voluntary payment doctrine bars Plaintiffs’ claims and the class action claims. Forty-Third Defense Plaintiffs and the purported class members’ cannot prove the elements of any of their claims. 64 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 65 of 69 Forty-Fourth Defense Plaintiffs’ and the purported class members’ claims are barred in whole or in part by consent. Forty-Fifth Defense Plaintiffs and the purported class members either pleaded or were found guilty of all offenses leading to their probation; therefore, any of Plaintiffs’ and the purported class members’ claims originating from facts or circumstances related to their probation lack merit and are barred. Forty-Sixth Defense Plaintiffs’ and the purported class members’ injuries, if any, were caused solely by acts or omissions of persons or entities other than JCS, who are not and were not employees or agents of JCS, for whose acts or omissions JCS are not responsible and which did not occur in connection with direct or indirect contractual relationship with JCS. At all times, JCS exercised due care and took precaution against foreseeable acts and omissions of third parties. Forty-Seventh Defense JCS denies that the claims of the individual Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the proposed class and that the defenses to the action are also on grounds generally applicable to the proposed class. 65 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 66 of 69 Forty-Eighth Defense Plaintiffs willfully failed to comply with the terms of probation, even when able to do so. Forty-Ninth Defense The Complaint makes vague, conclusory, and extraneous allegations, which are barred under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 678 (2009). Fiftieth Defense Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Fifty-First Defense Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief in ongoing matters are barred by the exclusive federal remedy of habeas corpus. Fifty-Second Defense Plaintiffs’ claims for prospective injunctive relief would constitute an intrusive, unworkable, and ongoing interference by this Court with state court criminal proceedings and would violate principles of comity and federalism. Fifty-Third Defense The contract between JCS and Clanton is valid under Alabama law. Fifty-Fourth Defense Plaintiffs’ and the purported class members’ claims are barred by the rule against double recovery. 66 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 67 of 69 Fifty-Fifth Defense JCS adopts and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, all defenses (including affirmative defenses) asserted by the City of Clanton, Alabama, to the extent that those defenses are not inconsistent with the answers, denials, and defenses asserted by JCS. Fifty-Sixth Defense JCS reserves the right to amend this Answer as discovery proceeds in this case. Request for Relief JCS requests relief as follows: 1. That the Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice; 2. That judgment be entered in favor of JCS; 3. That JCS be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs for defending this case; and 4. That JCS be awarded any other, different relief to which it is entitled. 67 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 68 of 69 Respectfully submitted on May 9, 2017. s/Michael L. Jackson Larry S. Logsdon Michael L. Jackson Wesley K. Winborn llogsdon@wallacejordan.com mjackson@wallacejordan.com wwinborn@wallacejordan.com Of Counsel: Wallace, Jordan, Ratliff & Brandt, L.L.C. P.O. Box 530910 Birmingham, Alabama 35253 (205) 870-0555 Wilson F. Green wgreen@fleenorgreen.com Of Counsel: Fleenor & Green LLP 1657 McFarland Blvd. N., Ste. G2A Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35406 (205) 722-1018 Attorneys for Defendants Judicial Corrections Services 68 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 107 Filed 05/09/17 Page 69 of 69 Certificate of Service I certify that on May 9, 2017, I served a copy of the foregoing Answer on all counsel by the Court=s CM/ECF electronic-filing system, as follows: William M. Dawson Jr., Esq. J. Mitchell McGuire, Esq. Attorney at Law McGuire & Associates LLC 1736 Oxmoor Road 31 Clayton Street Birmingham, AL 35209 Montgomery, AL 36104 bill@billdawsonlaw.com jmcguire@mandabusinesslaw.com F. Lane Finch Jr., Esq. James W. Porter II, Esq. Brian C. Richardson, Esq. Richard Warren Kinney, Esq. Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, LLP Porter, Porter & Hassinger PC 2 North 20th Street, Suite 1405 P.O. Box 128 Birmingham, AL 35203 Birmingham, AL 35201-0128 lane.finch@swiftcurrie.com jwporterii@pphlaw.net brian.richardson@swiftcurrie.com wkinney@pphlaw.net G. Daniel Evans, Esq. Gregory C. Cook, Esq. Alexandria Parrish, Esq. L. Conrad Anderson IV, Esq. Maurine C. Evans, Esq. Will Hill Tankersley, Esq. The Evans Law Firm Ginny Willcox Leavens, Esq. 1736 Oxmoor Road; Suite 101 Chase T Espy, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35209 Christopher K. Friedman, Esq. gdevans@evanslawpc.com Balch & Bingham LLP ap@evanslawpc.com P.O. Box 306 mevans@evanslawpc.com Birmingham, AL 35201 gcook@balch.com Matthew Swerdlin, Esq. canderson@balch.com Attorney at Law wtankers@balch.com 1736 Oxmoor Road, Suite 101 gwillcox@balch.com Homewood, AL 35209 cespy@balch.com matt@attorneyswerdlin.com cfriedman@balch.com s/Michael L. Jackson Michael L. Jackson mjackson@wallacejordan.com 69

REPLY BRIEF re [104] Response in Opposition to Motion filed by Deangelo Barnett, Candice Chapman, Tracy Dubose, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield.

Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 108 Filed 05/15/17 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION CANDICE CHAPMAN, MICHAEL LITTLEFIELD,) STEDMAN KINE, DEANGELO BARNETT, TRACY) DUBOSE, individually and for a class of) similarly situated persons or entities.)) Plaintiffs;) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO:) 2:15-cv-125-RCL THE CITY OF CLANTON, a municipal corporation;) JUDICIAL CORRECTION SERVICES, LLC.,) a limited liability company, f/d/b/a) CLASS ACTION JUDICIAL CORRECTION SERVICES, INC.;) CHC COMPANIES, INC., a corporation;) and CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC,) a limited liability company.)) Defendants.) PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO LIFT STAY Come now the Plaintiffs in the above-styled cause and make this reply to the City’s response (104) to the Motion to Lift the Stay. In light of the City’s response, the Plaintiffs will promptly undertake to schedule a planning meeting on May 19, 2017. This complaint has been pending for many months about which the Defendants are thoroughly familiar, and about which their clients have no doubt been informed, such that this most recent delay seems without justification. In hopes of avoiding a similar reoccurrence and in light of the City’s response, the Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an order lifting the stay of discovery by consent effective May 19, 2017. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, s/G. Daniel Evans Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 108 Filed 05/15/17 Page 2 of 3 G. Daniel Evans ASB-1661-N76G Alexandria Parrish ASB-2477-D66P Maurine C. Evans ASB-4168-P16T Attorneys for the Plaintiffs The Evans Law Firm, P.C. 1736 Oxmoor Road, Suite 101 Birmingham, Alabama 35209 Telephone: (205) 870-1970 Fax: (205) 870-7763 E-Mail: gdevans@evanslawpc.com E-Mail: ap@evanslawpc.com E-Mail: mevans@evanslawpc.com William M. Dawson ASB-3976-S80W Attorney for the Plaintiffs Dawson Law Office 1736 Oxmoor Road Birmingham, Alabama 35209 Telephone: 205-795-3512 E-Mail: bill@billdawsonlaw.com Matt Swerdlin ASB-9090-M74S 1736 Oxmoor Road Birmingham, AL 35209 Phone: 205-795-3517 Mobile: 205-440-3214 Email: matt@attorneyswerdlin.com Joseph Mitchell McGuire ASB-8317-S69M McGuire and Associates 31 Clayton Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Phone: 334-517-1000 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 15, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion to Lift Stay with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 108 Filed 05/15/17 Page 3 of 3 James W. Porter, II R. Warren Kinney Porter, Porter & Hassinger, P.C. P.O. Box 128 Birmingham, AL 35201-0128 Will Hill Tankersley Gregory C. Cook L. Conrad Anderson IV Chase T. Espy Balch & Bingham LLP 1901 6th Ave. N., Ste. 1500 Birmingham, AL 35203 Larry S. Logsdon Michael L. Jackson Wesley K. Winborn WALLACE, JORDAN, RATLIFF and BRANDT, LLC P.O. Box 530910 Birmingham, AL 35253 Lane Finch Brian C. Richardson SWIFT CURRIE MCGHEE and HIERS, LLP 2 North 20th Street, Suite 1405 Birmingham, AL 35203 s/G. Daniel Evans G. Daniel Evans

MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by The City of Clanton.

Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 109 Filed 09/08/17 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA CANDICE CHAPMAN, et al.)) Plaintiffs,) v.)) 2:15-CV-125-RCL-WC THE CITY OF CLANTON, et al.,)) Defendants.))) MOTION TO WITHDRAW Christopher K. Friedman hereby requests the court’s permission to withdraw as counsel of record in the above-referenced matter for The City of Clanton. The City of Clanton will continue to be represented by Will Hill Tankersley, Gregory C. Cook, L. Conrad Anderson, Ginny W. Willcox and Chase T. Espy of Balch & Bingham LLP and James Wallace Porter, II and Richard Warren Kinney of Porter, Porter & Hassinger PC. Respectfully submitted:/s/Christopher K. Friedman One of the Attorneys for Defendant, The City of Clanton Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 109 Filed 09/08/17 Page 2 of 3 OF COUNSEL Will Hill Tankersley Gregory C. Cook L. Conrad Anderson IV Ginny Willcox Leavens Chase T. Espy Christopher K. Friedman BALCH & BINGHAM LLP 1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 1500 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Facsimile: (205) 226-8798 WHT@balch.com gcook@balch.com canderson@balch.com gwillcox@balch.com cespy@balch.com cfriedman@balch.com James Wallace Porter, II Richard Warren Kinney PORTER, PORTER & HASSINGER, PC 880 Montclair Road Suite 175 Birmingham, AL 35213 Telephone: (205)322-1744 Facsimile: (205)322-1750 jwporterii@pphlaw.net wkinney@pphlaw.net CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following by directing same to his or her office address via United States first class mail, postage prepaid, or by electronically filing the foregoing with the Clerk using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing on September 8, 2017. 2 Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 109 Filed 09/08/17 Page 3 of 3 G. Daniel Evans J. Mitch McGuire, Esq. Alexandria Parrish MCGUIRE & ASSOCIATES, LLC Maurine C. Evans 31 Clayton Street THE EVANS LAW FIRM, P.C. Montgomery, AL 36104 1736 Oxmoor Road, Suite 101 Birmingham, Alabama 35209 William M. Dawson, Esq. Matthew S. Swerdlin, Esq. DAWSON LAW OFFICE MATTHEW SWERDLIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 2600 Highland Avenue, Suite 404 1736 Oxmoor Road, Suite 101 Birmingham, AL 35205 Homewood, AL 35209 Larry S. Logsdon F. Lane Finch, Jr. Michael L. Jackson Brian C. Richardson Wesley Kyle Winborn Swift Currie McGhee and Hiers, LLP Wallace, Jordan, Ratliff, & Brandt, 2 North 20th Street, Suite 1405 LLC Birmingham, AL 35203 P.O. Box 530910 Birmingham, AL 35253/s/Christopher K. Friedman OF COUNSEL 3

ORDER DENYING as moot [76] Motion for Extension of Time to Answer second amended complaint, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 9/28/2017.

Case 2:15-cv-00125-RCL-WC Document 110 Filed 09/28/17 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION CANDICE CHAPMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, V. Case No. 2:15-cv-125 (RCL) THE CITY OF CLANTON, et al., Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is a Motion [76] by defendant, The City of Clanton, for extension of time to file an answer to the plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. The City of Clanton filed a Motion to Dismiss [79] on the date its Answer would have been due, which tolled the deadline for filing until the Court decided the latter motion; the defendant then filed a timely Answer after the Court ruled on its Motion to Dismiss. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4). The defendant's motion for extension of time [76] is therefore DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED this Z2y of September, 2017. Royce C. Lamberth United States District Judge

~Util - Terminate Motions

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION) CANDICE CHAPMAN,et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) Case No. 2:15-cv-125(RCL)) THE CITY OF CLANTON,et al.,)) Defendants.)) ORDER Before the Court is a Motion [103] by plaintiffs to lift stay in this case [59]. The Motion is unopposed by the defendants. The plaintiffs' Motion to Lift Stay[103]is therefore GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1.44ty ofJfre3018. 4 e. Cp "matic. Royce C. Lamberth United States District Judge

Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION) CANDICE CHAPMAN,et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) Case No. 2:15-cv-125(RCL)) THE CITY OF CLANTON,et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER Now before the Court is the Motion to Withdraw 'as Attorney [ECF No. 109] by Christopher K. Friedman. Upon consideration, the motion is hereby GRANTED. SO ORDERED. Date: -7/ C X-44../A•tc Royce C. Lamberth United States District Court

MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiffs by Deangelo Barnett, Candice Chapman, Tracy Dubose, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION CANDICE CHAPMAN et al.,) Plaintiff,))) CASE NO. 2:15-cv-125-RCL-WC CITY OF CLANTON, ALABAMA et al.,) Defendants.) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS COMES NOW, Joseph Mitchell McGuire, attorney of record for PlaintiffS, and respectfully moves to withdraw as counsel in this case. The Plaintiffs will continue to be represented by counsel from the Evans Law Firm, Mr. William Dawson and Mr. Matthew Swerdlin. Respectfully submitted, this 10th day of September, 2018. /s/Joseph Mitchell McGuire Joseph Mitchell McGuire (ASB-8317-S69M) 31 Clayton Street Montgomery, Alabama 36104 (334) 517-1000 voice (334) 517-1000 fax jmcguire@mandabusinesslaw.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on September 10. 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notice of such filing to all counsel of record: /s/ Joseph Mitchell McGuire Joseph Mitchell McGuire 2

Interested in this case?

Sign up to receive real-time updates
Last full docket sheet refresh: 540 days ago. Refresh now
#
Datesort arrow up
Description
1
02/23/2015
COMPLAINT for declaratory judgment against The City of Clanton (Filing fee $ 400.00 receipt number 4602035759.), filed by Candice Chapman, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield.
1
Exhibit A
2
Exhibit B
3
Exhibit C
4
Exhibit D
5
Exhibit E
6
Exhibit F
7
Exhibit G
8
Exhibit H
9
Exhibit I
10
Exhibit J
11
Exhibit K
12
Exhibit L
13
Exhibit M
14
Exhibit N
15
fee receipt
15 Attachments
2
02/23/2015
Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Candice Chapman.
3
02/23/2015
Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Stedman Kine.
4
02/23/2015
Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Michael Littlefield.
5
02/23/2015
Summons Issued as to The City of Clanton and returned to counsel for personal service on the defendant.
6
02/24/2015
SUMMONS Returned Executed by Candice Chapman, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield. The City of Clanton served on Debbie Orange by process server on 2/24/2015, answer due 3/17/2015.
7
03/17/2015
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by The City of Clanton.
03/17/2015
***Attorney James Wallace Porter, II for The City of Clanton added pursuant to 7 motion (NO PDF Document attached to this notice). (Text entry; no document attached.)
8
03/18/2015
Notice of Deficiency requiring filing of Corporate Disclosure/Conflict Statement sent to The City of Clanton; Corporate Disclosures due by 3/30/2015.
1
standing order & format
1 Attachment
9
03/18/2015
Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by The City of Clanton re 8 Notice of Deficiency requiring filing of Corporate Disclosure/Conflict Statement.
10
03/18/2015
BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 7 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by The City of Clanton.
11
03/19/2015
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to why 7 Motion to Dismiss should not be granted. Show Cause Response due by 4/9/2015; the def shall have until 4/16/2015 to file any response it may wish to file; the motion will be taken under submission on that day for determination without oral argument. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 3/19/15.
12
04/09/2015
RESPONSE to Motion re 7 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Candice Chapman, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield.
1
Exhibit Ex. 1
2
Exhibit Ex. 2
3
Exhibit Ex. 3
4
Exhibit Ex. 4
5
Exhibit Ex. 5
6
Exhibit Ex. 6
7
Exhibit Ex. 7
8
Exhibit Ex. 8) Modified on 4/10/2015 to clarify text to reflect as also in response to
10
https://ecf.almd.uscourts.gov/doc1/01712456779" onClick="goDLS{{'/doc1/01712456779','56541','39','','2','1','',''}};">10</a> brief in support of motion (qc/djy,)
9 Attachments
13
04/09/2015
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Candice Chapman, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield re 12 Response to Motion, 11 Order to Show Cause.
04/13/2015
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody: Mediation Conference Call held on 4/13/2015 (NO PDF Attached). (Text entry; no document attached.)
14
04/15/2015
ORDER setting Mediation Conference for 4/28/2015 @ 10:00 AM before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody, in Courtroom 4B, US Courthouse, Montgomery, AL; further ORDERING that counsel and the parties or a representative with full authority to settle the case shall appear at and attend this conference; on or before the close of business on 4/24/2015 each party shall provide the undersigned judge with a confidential mediation conference statement; the statement should not be filed with the clerk's office and should not be served on the other parties, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 4/15/15. Furnished to calendar group & WS.
04/15/2015
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody: Mediation Conference Call held on 4/15/2015 (No PDF attached). (Text entry; no document attached.)
15
04/16/2015
REPLY to Response to Motion re 7 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by The City of Clanton. Modified on 4/17/2015 to clarify text to reflect as also a REPLY to 12 RESPONSE (qc/djy,).
16
04/28/2015
ORDER continuing Mediation Conference to 5/7/2015 @ 10:00 AM before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody, in Courtroom 4B, US Courthouse, Montgomery, AL. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 4/28/15. Furnished to calendar group & WS (previously set for 4/28/2015 @ 10:00 AM).
04/28/2015
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody: Mediation Conference held on 4/28/2015 (NO PDF Attached). (Text entry; no document attached.)
17
05/01/2015
Notice of Mediation and Settlement Conference by All Plaintiffs
18
05/07/2015
ORDER continuing Mediation Conference to 5/14/2015 10:00 AM before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody, in Courtroom 4B, US Courthouse, Montgomery, AL. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 5/7/15. Furnished to calendar group & WS (reset from 5/7/2015).
05/07/2015
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody: Mediation Conference held on 5/7/2015 (No PDF Attached). (Text entry; no document attached.)
05/14/2015
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody: Mediation Conference held on 5/14/2015 (NO PDF aAttached). (Text entry; no document attached.)
19
05/28/2015
NOTICE of Appearance by Lewis Conrad Anderson, IV on behalf of The City of Clanton
20
05/28/2015
NOTICE of Appearance by Will Hill Tankersley, Jr on behalf of The City of Clanton
21
05/28/2015
NOTICE of Appearance by Chase T Espy on behalf of The City of Clanton
22
06/10/2015
ORDER continuing the Mediation Conference to 6/16/2015 10:00 AM before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coodym, in Courtroom 4B, US Courthouse, Montgomery, AL. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 6/10/15. Furnished to calendar group & WS. (continued from 5/14/15).
06/11/2015
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody: Mediation Conference held on 6/11/2015 (NO PDF Attached). (Text entry; no document attached.)
06/15/2015
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody: Mediation Conference held on 6/15/2015 (NO PDF Attached). (Text entry; no document attached.)
23
07/07/2015
Joint MOTION to Dismiss by The City of Clanton.
1
Exhibit Executed Settlement Agreement
2
https://ecf.almd.uscourts.gov/doc1/01712514937" onClick="goDLS{{'/doc1/01712514937','56541','100','','2','1','',''}};">2</a> Text of Proposed Order) Modified on 7/8/2015 to clarify text to reflect as also filed on behalf of Candice Chapman, Michael Littlefield, and Stedman Kine (qc/djy,)
2 Attachments
24
07/09/2015
ORDER (1) GRANTING; 23 Joint MOTION to Dismis; (2) the Court retains jurisdiction for (2) years from the date of this order to enforce the terms of the Parties' Settlement Agreement; and (3) the plf's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are DISMISSED without prejudice; (4) the 7 MOTION TO DISMISS is DENIED as moot; (5) this case will continue on the claims for damages and attorney's fees. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 7/9/15.
1
civil appeals checklist
1 Attachment
25
07/13/2015
ORDER directing that the Rule 26(f) report containing the discovery plan shall be filed as soon as practicable, as further set out in order; Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 8/3/2015. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 7/13/15.
26
07/22/2015
ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by The City of Clanton. Modified on 9/9/2015 to clarify text to remove jury demand notation as the PDF document does not include a jury demand (qc/djy,).
27
07/22/2015
Joint MOTION to Stay Discovery by The City of Clanton. Modified on 7/23/2015 to clarify text to reflect as also filed on behalf of Candice Chapman, Stedman Kine, and Michael Littlefield (qc/djy,).
28
07/23/2015
ORDER GRANTING 27 Joint MOTION to Stay Discovery to the extent that the time for filing the Report of Parties Planning Meeting is EXTENDED to 9/3/2015. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 7/23/15.
29
09/03/2015
REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting.
30
09/08/2015
ORDER directing that the parties are to file a new report of parties planning meeting no later than 9/15/15, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 9/8/15.
31
09/08/2015
REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting.
32
09/09/2015
SCHEDULING ORDER setting Pretrial Conference for 6/30/2016 before Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton III, in Montgomery, AL; Non-Jury Trial set for 8/15/2016 before Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton III, in Montgomery, AL; Amended Pleadings for plf due by 1/15/2016 and for def due by 2/1/2016; Discovery due by 5/1/2016; dispositive and daubert Motions due by 4/1/2016; Mediation Notice due by 4/27/2016, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 9/9/15. Furnished to calendar group & EB.
33
10/13/2015
First MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint, by Candice Chapman, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield.
1
Exhibit Exhibit A - Amended Class Action Complaint
1 Attachment
34
10/20/2015
Case reassigned to Chief Judge William Keith Watkins. Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III no longer assigned to the case as presiding judge.
35
10/21/2015
ORDER directing that defendant file a response to the 33 First MOTION to Amend1] Complaint on or before 11/3/2015. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 10/21/15.
36
10/21/2015
ORDER RESCHEDULING the Pretrial Conference set for 6/30/2016 to 7/7/2016 before Chief Judge William Keith Watkins; the Non-Jury Trial date will remain as previously scheduled, 8/15/2016 before Chief Judge William Keith Watkins, in Courtroom 2B of the FMJ US Courthouse, Montgomery, AL. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 10/21/15. Furnished to calendar group & AR.
37
10/21/2015
GENERAL BRIEFING ORDER for any motions to remand, motions to dismiss, motions for judgment on the pleadings, motions for summary judgment, and Daubert motions setting briefing schedule, as further set out in order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 10/21/15.
38
10/22/2015
(STRICKEN PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S 40 ORDER) AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Candice Chapman, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield. Modified on 10/23/2015.
1
Exhibit Motion and Brief in Support of Class Certification
2
Exhibit Plaintiffs' Jury Demand
2 Attachments
39
10/23/2015
MOTION to Withdraw 38 Amended Complaint, by Candice Chapman, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield.
40
10/23/2015
ORDER granting 39 Motion to Withdraw 38 Amended Complaint; The Clerk of Court is directed to strike the amended complaint. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 10/23/2015.
41
11/02/2015
RESPONSE to Motion re 33 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint, filed by The City of Clanton.
1
Exhibit 1
1 Attachment
42
11/04/2015
ORDER granting 33 Motion to Amend the complaint, as further set out in order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 11/4/15.
43
11/04/2015
AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Candice Chapman, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield.
1
Supplement Legal brief in support of class certification
2
Supplement Plaintiffs' Jury Demand
2 Attachments
11/04/2015
MOTION to Certify Class by Candice Chapman, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield.(NO PDF document attached to this notice-See Docket entry 43 attachment 1). (Text entry; no document attached.)
11/04/2015
LEGAL BRIEF in Support re 43 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Candice Chapman, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield. (NO PDF document attached to this notice-See Docket entry 43 attachment 1). (Text entry; no document attached.)
11/04/2015
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Candice Chapman, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield. (NO PDF document attached to this notice-See Docket entry 43 attachment 2). (Text entry; no document attached.)
44
11/10/2015
MOTION to Dismiss by The City of Clanton.
1
Exhibit 1
1 Attachment
45
11/17/2015
(VACATED pursuant to 48 ORDER) ORDER directing the defendant's file a response brief to the 43 MOTION to Certify Classon or before 12/7/2015; plf's reply brief, if any shall be due 7 days after the date the response is filed, as further set out in order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 11/17/15. Modified on 11/23/2015.
46
11/17/2015
NOTICE of Appearance by Gregory Carl Cook on behalf of The City of Clanton
47
11/20/2015
MOTION to Stay re 45 Order, Set Deadlines, or Alternately Motion to Amend by The City of Clanton.
48
11/23/2015
ORDER directing that the pls file a response to the 47 MOTION to Stay on or before 11/30/2015; further ORDERING that all briefing deadlines on the motion for class certification are suspended, and the 45 order setting briefing deadlines on the motion for class certification is VACATED. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 11/23/15.
49
11/23/2015
RESPONSE to Motion re 47 MOTION to Stay re 45 Order, Set Deadlines, or Alternately Motion to Amend filed by Candice Chapman, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield.
50
11/24/2015
ORDER GRANTING 47 MOTION to Stay deadlines; further ORDERING that the 43 MOTION for class certification is DENIED without prejudice to refile the motion within 14 days after the court enters a ruling on the 44 motion to dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 11/24/15.
51
12/01/2015
RESPONSE to Motion re 44 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Candice Chapman, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield.
52
12/08/2015
REPLY BRIEF filed by The City of Clanton.
1
Exhibit
2
Exhibit
3
Exhibit
3 Attachments
53
12/18/2015
NOTICE by Candice Chapman, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield re 52 Reply Brief, 44 MOTION to Dismiss, 51 Response to Motion Notice of Supplemental Authority
1
Exhibit Exhibit A to Notice of Supplemental Authority
2
Exhibit Exhibit B to Notice of Supplemental Authority
2 Attachments
54
12/23/2015
ORDERED that, on or before 12/30/2015, Dft may file a supplemental reply in support of its motion to dismiss; Dft's supplemental reply shall be addressed solely to the 53 notice of supplemental authority. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 12/23/2015.
55
12/30/2015
SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY in support of 44 motion to dismiss re: Plaintiffs' Submission of Supplemental Authority filed by The City of Clanton. Modified on 1/4/2016 to clarify text to reflect heading of main pdf document (qc/djy,).
56
02/08/2016
NOTICE by Candice Chapman, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield Second Notice of Supplemental Authority
1
Exhibit Exhibit A to Notice of Supplemental Authority
2
Exhibit Exhibit B to Notice of Supplemental Authority
3
Exhibit Exhibit C to Notice of Supplemental Authority
3 Attachments
57
02/16/2016
BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 56 Notice (Other), filed by The City of Clanton.
1
Exhibit Form CR-50
1 Attachment
58
03/23/2016
MOTION for Extension of Deadline To amend complaint, add parties, and complete discovery by Candice Chapman, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield.
59
04/01/2016
ORDER GRANTING plf's unopposed 58 MOTION to extend Deadlines; this case and all deadlines in the 32 scheduling order are STAYED pending further orders of the court; the pretrial conference previously set for 7/7/2016 is CONTINUED generally; the trial previously set for 8/15/2016 is CONTINUED generally. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 4/1/16. Furnished to calendar group & AR. Furnished to calendar & AR (terminates Pretrial Conference 07/07/2016; Non-Jury Trial 08/15/2016).
60
04/11/2016
MOTION to Stay Discovery by The City of Clanton.
61
04/13/2016
ORDER further clarifying 59 order: pursuant to the 4/1/2016 order, this case, including discovery, and all deadlines in the 32 scheduling order are STAYED pending further orders of the court; def's 60 MOTION to Stay discovery is DENIED as MOOT. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 4/13/16.
62
04/27/2016
NOTICE of Appearance by George Daniel Evans on behalf of Candice Chapman, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield
63
04/27/2016
NOTICE of Appearance by George Daniel Evans on behalf of Candice Chapman, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield
64
04/27/2016
MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Leave to File Second Amended and Restated Complaint And Memorandum of Law in Support by Candice Chapman, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield.
1
Exhibit 1 - Second Amended and Restated Complaint
1 Attachment
04/27/2016
***Attorney Alexandria Parrish for Candice Chapman,Alexandria Parrish for Stedman Kine,Alexandria Parrish for Michael Littlefield added pursuant to 63 notice (NO PDF document attached to this notice). (Text entry; no document attached.)
65
05/02/2016
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to why 64 Motion for Leave to File a second amended complaint should not be granted; Show Cause Response due by 5/16/2016. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 5/2/16.
66
05/16/2016
RESPONSE to Plaintiffs' 64 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended and Restated Complaint and Memorandum of Law in Support filed by The City of Clanton. Modified on 5/17/2016 to reflect actual title, clean up text, and include names of exhibits.
1
Exhibit 1
2
Exhibit 2
2 Attachments
67
05/23/2016
REPLY BRIEF re 66 Response in Opposition to Motion, Plaintiffs Reply to Clantons Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to File Second Amended and Restated Complaint and Memorandum of Law in Support filed by Candice Chapman, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield.
68
06/15/2016
Case reassigned to Honorable Judge Royce C. Lamberth and Honorable Judge Wallace Capel, Jr. Chief Judge William Keith Watkins, Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody no longer assigned to the case as presiding and referral judges.
69
07/20/2016
ORDER Setting Motion Hearing re: 44 MOTION to Dismiss for 8/18/2016 @ 02:30 PM before Honorable Judge Royce C. Lamberth, in Courtroom 2F. Signed by Honorable Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 7/20/16. Furnished to calendar group & AR.
70
08/11/2016
Notice to counsel: Counsel are advised that the hearing in the cases referred to in note 1 of the Court's 69 order of 7/20/2016, has been moved from 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM on 8/18/2016. The hearing will still be held in Courtroom 2-F. Signed by Honorable Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 8/11/16.
71
08/18/2016
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Judge Royce C. Lamberth: Motion Hearing held on 8/18/2016 re 44 MOTION to Dismiss filed by The City of Clanton, 64 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Leave to File Second Amended and Restated Complaint And Memorandum of Law in Support filed by Stedman Kine, Candice Chapman, Michael Littlefield (PDF available for court use only). (Court Reporter Patricia G. Starkie.)
72
10/05/2016
NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher Knox Friedman on behalf of The City of Clanton
73
12/15/2016
ORDER granting 64 Motion for Leave to File second amended complaint; further ORDERING that the pending 44 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT given that plfs are granted leave to file their second amended complaint. Signed by Honorable Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 12/9/16.
74
12/15/2016
AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED COMPLAINT against The City of Clanton, Judicial Correction Services, LLC, Correct Care Solutions, LLC, CHC Companies, Inc., filed by Candice Chapman, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield, Deangelo Barnett, Tracy Dubose.
1
Exhibit A - Failure to Report Letter
2
Exhibit B - Notice to Show Cause
3
Exhibit C - Petitions for Revocation
4
Exhibit D - Warrants
4 Attachments
75
12/20/2016
Summons Issued; summons and 74 Amended Complaint mailed CMRRR to CHC Companies, Inc., Correct Care Solutions, LLC, Judicial Correction Services, LLC.
76
12/27/2016
MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 74 Amended Complaint, by The City of Clanton.
77
12/29/2016
Return Receipt Card showing service of summons and amended complaint signed by Julie Buckner for Correct Care Solutions, LLC served on 12/27/2016, answer due 1/17/2017.
78
12/29/2016
Return Receipt Card showing service of summons and amended complaint signed by Julie Buckner for CHC Companies, Inc. served on 12/27/2016, answer due 1/17/2017.
79
12/29/2016
MOTION TO DISMISS All Claims in the 74 Second Amended Complaint and Restated Complaint FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by The City of Clanton. Modified on 12/30/2016 to create link to Doc. 74 and reflect actual title.
80
12/29/2016
BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 74 Amended Complaint, 79 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by The City of Clanton.
1
Exhibit Report of Sue Bell Cobb
2
Exhibit Judicial Inquiry Commission Complaint
3
Exhibit Municipal Judge Oath
4
Exhibit Magistrate/Warrant Clerk Oath
5
Exhibit Declaration of Jim Porter
6
Exhibit Declaration of Warren Kinney
6 Attachments
81
01/03/2017
Return Receipt Card showing service of summons and amended complaint signed by Alexa (illegible) for Judicial Correction Services, LLC served on (no date given), answer due 1/23/2017.
82
01/17/2017
MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' 74 Second Amended and Restated Complaint by CHC Companies, Inc., Correct Care Solutions, LLC. Modified on 1/18/2017 to create link to Doc. 74.
1
Brief In Support of Motion to Dismiss
1 Attachment
01/17/2017
***Attorney Brian C. Richardson added for CHC Companies, Inc., and Correct Care Solutions, LLC. (see Doc. 82 for pdf) (Text entry; no document attached.)
01/17/2017
BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support of 82 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' 74 Second Amended and Restated Complaint filed by CHC Companies, Inc., Correct Care Solutions, LLC. (NO PDF, see Doc. 82 for pdf.) (Text entry; no document attached.)
83
01/18/2017
NOTICE of Appearance by Maurine C Evans on behalf of Deangelo Barnett, Candice Chapman, Tracy Dubose, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield
84
01/19/2017
MOTION to Strike DOC. 80 -1 THROUGH 80 -6 OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO STAY by Deangelo Barnett, Candice Chapman, Tracy Dubose, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield. Modified on 4/25/2017 to create actual hyperlink to Doc. 80.
1
https://ecf.almd.uscourts.gov/doc1/01712812813" onClick="goDLS{{'/doc1/01712812813','56541','319','','2','1','',''}};">1</a> Exhibit A - Declaration of G. Daniel Evans) Modified on 1/20/2017 to clarify text to reflect attachment 1 as Exhibit A (qc/djy,). Added alternative MOTION to Stay as reflected in main PDF document on 1/20/2017 (qc/djy,)
1 Attachment
85
01/19/2017
RESPONSE in Opposition re 79 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Deangelo Barnett, Candice Chapman, Tracy Dubose, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield.
86
01/23/2017
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Judicial Correction Services, LLC.
1
Exhibit A
1 Attachment
01/23/2017
***Attorney Wilson F. Green added for Judicial Correction Services, LLC. (see Doc. 86 for pdf) (Text entry; no document attached.)
87
01/26/2017
NOTICE of Appearance by Larry Stephen Logsdon on behalf of Judicial Correction Services, LLC
88
01/26/2017
NOTICE of Appearance by Wesley Kyle Winborn on behalf of Judicial Correction Services, LLC
89
01/26/2017
REPLY BRIEF in support of 79 motion to dismiss; re 85 Response in Opposition to Motion, 80 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support, filed by The City of Clanton. Modified on 1/27/2017 to clarify text to reflect as in support of 79 motion to dismiss (qc/djy,).
90
01/26/2017
RESPONSE to Motion re 84 MOTION to Strike DOCS. 80-1 THROUGH 80-6 OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO STAY MOTION to Stay filed by The City of Clanton.
91
02/07/2017
RESPONSE in Opposition re 86 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Deangelo Barnett, Candice Chapman, Tracy Dubose, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield. Modified on 2/8/2017 to clarify text to reflect as also re 82 MOTION to dismiss (qc/djy,).
92
02/07/2017
RESPONSE in Opposition re 82 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended and Restated Complaint filed by Deangelo Barnett, Candice Chapman, Tracy Dubose, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield.
93
02/14/2017
REPLY BRIEF re 86 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Judicial Correction Services, LLC.
94
02/14/2017
REPLY BRIEF re 92 Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint filed by CHC Companies, Inc., Correct Care Solutions, LLC.
95
02/22/2017
Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Correct Care Solutions, LLC.
96
02/22/2017
Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by CHC Companies, Inc.
97
02/23/2017
Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Judicial Correction Services, LLC.
98
02/24/2017
NOTICE by The City of Clanton re 89 Reply Brief, 79 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, 80 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support, Supplemental Authority
1
Exhibit Ray v. Childersburg Memorandum Opinion
2
Exhibit Fourth Amended Complaint - Ray
2 Attachments
99
04/25/2017
ORDER: Before the Court is plaintiffs' 84 Motion to strike documents 80 -1 through 80 -6 or, in the alternative, to stay the motion containing those documents. Defendant concedes that the documents should be struck. See Resp. Mot. to Strike 3, ECF No. 90 ("[T]he City of Clanton would concede to the Court striking the Exhibits attached to its Motion to Dismiss.") Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion 84 is GRANTED. The documents labeled ECF No. 80 -1 through 80 -6 shall be struck. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 4/25/2017.
100
04/25/2017
MEMORANDUM OPINION: This case is one of several before the Court that all contain similar allegations: that Alabama cities attempting to increase municipal budgets were running debtors prisons and implementing policies that adversely impacted indigent residents of those cities. Currently before the Court are motions to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint under FRCP 12(b)(6). Such motions were filed by the City of Clanton, Judicial Correction Services (JCS), and CHC Companies, Inc. These motions will be granted in part and denied in part as further set out in the opinion. Though distinct in certain ways, this case is similar to other cases pending before this Court, most notably McCullough v. City of Montgomery, 2:15-cv-463, and Carter v. City of Montgomery,2:15-cv-555. This memorandum opinion should be read in conjunction with the opinions issued in those cases, as the issues overlap and Court will not repeat its analysis in this memorandum opinion. The memorandum opinions in those cases can be found at docket entry 131 in McCullough and docket entry 97 in Carter. Signed by Honorable Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 4/25/2017.
101
04/25/2017
ORDER: Upon consideration of defendants' motions 79, 82, 86 to dismiss the amended complaint, the supporting memoranda of points and authorities, the oppositions and replies thereto, the motions hearing, and the entire record herein, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants' motions be, and hereby are, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. As stated in the memorandum opinion issued on this date, defendants' motions are GRANTED with respect to count eleven. Count eleven is hereby dismissed. Defendants' motions are DENIED with respect to the remaining claims. Signed by Honorable Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 4/25/2017.
102
05/04/2017
NOTICE of Appearance by Ginny Willcox Leavens on behalf of The City of Clanton
103
05/04/2017
MOTION TO LIFT STAY re 59 Order by Deangelo Barnett, Candice Chapman, Tracy Dubose, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield. Modified on 5/12/2017 to create link to Doc. 59.
1
Exhibit 1 - Evans' 4 27 17 ltr to counsel
2
Exhibit 2 -Emails between counsel
2 Attachments
104
05/08/2017
RESPONSE in Opposition re 103 MOTION TO LIFT STAY filed by The City of Clanton.
105
05/09/2017
ANSWER to 74 Amended Complaint, by The City of Clanton.
106
05/09/2017
ANSWER to 74 Amended Complaint, by CHC Companies, Inc., Correct Care Solutions, LLC.
107
05/09/2017
ANSWER to 74 Amended Complaint, by Judicial Correction Services, LLC.
108
05/15/2017
REPLY BRIEF re [104] Response in Opposition to Motion filed by Deangelo Barnett, Candice Chapman, Tracy Dubose, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield.
109
09/08/2017
MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by The City of Clanton.
110
09/28/2017
ORDER DENYING as moot [76] Motion for Extension of Time to Answer second amended complaint, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 9/28/2017.
111
07/20/2018
~Util - Terminate Motions
112
07/20/2018
Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney
07/20/2018
*** Attorney Christopher Knox Friedman terminated pursuant to [112] order (NO PDF document attached to this notice). (Text entry; no document attached.)
113
09/10/2018
MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiffs by Deangelo Barnett, Candice Chapman, Tracy Dubose, Stedman Kine, Michael Littlefield.
114
10/08/2018
Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Correct Care Solutions, LLC.
115
10/08/2018
Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by CHC Companies, Inc.
Would you like this case removed from DocketBird? Request removal.