In an answer to an Aug. 23 federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of procedures surrounding Sherwood's hot-check court, an attorney for Pulaski County on Tuesday denied any wrongdoing on the part of the county.
In addition to filing 31 pages responding line by line to the lawsuit, which takes issue mostly with the city of Sherwood and its district judge, Milas "Butch" Hale, attorney David Fuqua attacked the plaintiffs' rights to file the lawsuit.
On behalf of Pulaski County, which is named as a third defendant in the case filed on behalf of poor people by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas and the national Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, Fuqua argued that the case should be thrown out for failure to state a proper claim.
The lawsuit alleges that through a "never-ending spiral of repetitive court proceedings and ever-increasing debt," the district court and Hale have violated the rights of hot-check defendants and misused public funds. The case seeks class-action status to represent thousands of defendants and taxpayers throughout the county, for which the court in Sherwood has prosecuted most of the county's misdemeanor hot-check violation charges since the mid-1970s.
In an answer filed Thursday, Sherwood and Hale also denied the allegations that they operate what amounts to a "modern-day debtors' prison," as the plaintiffs assert.
The lawsuit notes that a state law requires courts to consider a defendant's ability to pay when imposing fines and penalties for nonpayment, and alleges that the city, county and various personnel have developed a policy of arresting, prosecuting and jailing people who can't pay, without making the required inquiry. It notes that Pulaski County prosecuting attorneys who sit in on the hot-check court's proceedings have silently allowed the unconstitutional practices to occur.
Among the "affirmative defenses" that Fuqua asserted on behalf of Pulaski County are that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit, as is required; that the county is entitled to immunity from suit; and that "there is no Pulaski County policy or custom that led to the alleged constitutional violations."
Fuqua said the lawsuit's claims are barred pursuant to "the voluntary payment rule"; because the plaintiffs should have first appealed their convictions and sentences through the Arkansas court system; because of the statute of limitations; and, among other things, because the Pulaski County prosecutors "are state actors, not county officials."
The policies and practices of the prosecutor's office "are those of the prosecuting attorney, an elected official, not of Pulaski County," Fuqua said.
He added, "Pulaski County states affirmatively that it does not direct the operations of the Pulaski County Prosecutors Office," and that under Amendment 80 to the state constitution, "Arkansas has a unified court system that includes the district courts."
The district courts are what used to be referred to as municipal courts.
Fuqua said that under Amendment 80, "the district courts, like all other Arkansas courts, are under the supervising authority of the Arkansas Supreme Court, not their individual political subdivisions."
He also said the proposed class representatives aren't "similarly situated" to the proposed class of defendants and county taxpayers.
The lawsuit is pending before U.S. District Judge James M. Moody Jr., who has tentatively set a proposed trial date for late 2017.
Metro on 09/14/2016