Case 4:16-cv-03745 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/16 Page 1 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
)
LUCAS LOMAS,
)
CARLOS EALGIN,
)
On behalf of themselves and all
)
others similarly situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS,
)
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Case No.
(Class Action)

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Harris County fails to comply with the Fourth Amendments requirement that anyone
arrested without a warrant be released unless a neutral magistrate makes a prompt finding of
probable cause supported by an oath or affirmation. In Harris County, probable cause findings for
warrantless arrestees are never based on facts supported by oath or affirmation. Because of Harris
Countys policies and practices, thousands of people every year are kept in jail cells for days,
weeks, and months in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Texas law.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

Case 4:16-cv-03745 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/16 Page 2 of 18

NATURE OF THE ACTION1

1.

An average of about 1,400 people are arrested without a warrant every week in

Harris County. About half of them will still be in jail when their cases are resolved by dismissal,
conviction, or acquittal. Many others will spend several days or more in jail until they are able to
raise enough money to purchase their release.
2.

Harris County is required to release every single one of these detainees unless a

neutral magistrate makes a prompt finding of probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.
U.S. Const. amend. IV; Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 125 (1975). In Harris County, all probable
cause determinations for warrantless arrestees are based on facts alleged in unsworn statements.
The County, as a matter of uniform policy and practice, detains people despite the fact that County
officials know that a probable cause finding supported by an oath or affirmation never happens.
These post-arrest policies and practices result in the unconstitutional pretrial jailing of thousands
of people every month.
3.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, seek injunctive

and declaratory relief from Harris Countys policy and practice of failing to comply with the
fundamental constitutional requirement that all warrantless arrestees be released unless a neutral
magistrate makes a prompt finding of probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4.

This is a civil rights action arising under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343.

Plaintiffs make the allegations in this Complaint based on personal knowledge as to matters in which they had
personal involvement and on information and belief as to all other matters.

Case 4:16-cv-03745 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/16 Page 3 of 18

5.

Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391.

6.

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law cause of action asserted

in this Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367 because the state law claim forms part of the same
case or controversy as the federal law claim.
PARTIES
7.

Lucas Lomas is 26 years old. He was arrested without a warrant on December 24,

2016, for a felony offense and is currently in jail. He represents himself and a Class of similarly
situated people subjected to Defendants unlawful post-arrest practices.
8.

Carlos Ealgin is 27 years old. He was arrested without a warrant on December 26,

2016, for a misdemeanor offense and is currently in jail. He represents himself and a Class of
similarly situated people subjected to Defendants unlawful post-arrest practices.
9.

Defendant Harris County is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of

the State of Texas. Harris County has a policy and practice of failing to comply with the
constitutional requirement to provide warrantless arrestees in its custody a prompt, neutral
determination of probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.
HARRIS COUNTYS POLICIES AND PRACTICES
10.

Approximately 75,000 people are arrested without a warrant in Harris County every

11.

Harris County itself is responsible for about 25% of all arrests that take place within

year.

the County. The City of Houston is responsible for nearly another 50% of arrests. The remaining
arrests are made by more than 100 other agencies.
12.

Individuals who are arrested by the Harris County Sheriffs Office are typically

taken directly to the Harris County jail. Those arrested by other agencies are taken initially to field
stations run by other arresting agencies.
3

Case 4:16-cv-03745 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/16 Page 4 of 18

13.

Within hours of each warrantless arrest, the arresting officer calls a hotline staffed

around-the-clock by the District Attorneys Office.

The arresting officer describes the

circumstances leading to arrest, and the Assistant District Attorney on duty decides what, if any,
charges are supported by those circumstances. The statements an officer makes to the ADA on
duty are not sworn.
14.

If the ADA on duty believes that the officers factual recitation supports a charge,

the ADA accepts the charges.2 The ADA tells the arresting officer the financial condition of
release required by the schedule employed by Harris County.
15.

After the ADA accepts the charges, the police officer types a summary of the facts

and a description of the accepted charges into a District Attorneys Intake Management System
(DIMS) terminal. Most police officers in Harris County have access to such a terminal in their
squad cars; all officers can access them at stationhouses. The DIMS summary is not sworn.
16.

Arrestees who can pay the predetermined sum required for release (and who are not

otherwise ineligible for release) are released after basic processing at the arresting agencys
stationhouse. In these cases, a probable cause determination will be made, if at all, at a subsequent
court appearance. Arrestees who cannot afford to pay the financial condition required for their
release, or who are ineligible for release, are transferred to the Harris County Jail for booking. 3

At some point after charges are accepted, a criminal Complaint containing a boilerplate, bare bones recitation of the
charges is generated. The Complaint simply recites that officials believe a particular crime to have been committed
but does not contain a description of the facts leading to arrest. Therefore, it could not constitutionally serve as the
basis for a finding of probable cause by a judicial officer that the elements of a crime have been met. And, in practice,
it does not serve as the basis for Hearing Officers findings of probable cause because Hearing Officers base probable
cause determinations on the purported facts contained in the unsworn DIMS summary.
If the Harris County Sheriffs Office made the arrest, no transfer is necessary before the booking process begins
because Sheriffs Office arrestees are typically taken directly to the jail upon arrest.
3

Case 4:16-cv-03745 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/16 Page 5 of 18

17.

As a matter of policy and practice, individuals arrested without a warrant within

Harris County routinely do not receive probable cause determinations until they are transferred
from the custody of the arresting authority to Harris County custody.
18.

Harris County accepts into its custody all warrantless arrestees who are arrested by

other agencies and who fail to pay the monetary sum required for their release pursuant to the
Countys predetermined bail schedule.
19.

Many warrantless arrestees who are arrested by agencies other than Harris County

are held for two or three days, or more, before being transferred to the Harris County Jail.
20.

In July and August 2016, for example, many individuals arrested by the City of

Houston without a warrant were kept in the Houston Jail longer than 48 hours without a neutral
determination of probable cause. Booking records for 2016 show that, in these two months alone,
Houston held hundreds of inmates in its jail for longer than three days before transferring them to
Harris County. For example, one person arrested on July 25 did not receive a probable cause
determination until July 31 (more than 144 hours after arrest); another person, arrested on July 23,
did not receive a probable cause determination until July 30 (more than 168 hours after arrest);
and at least 35 other people in the months of July and August waited more than four days (96
hours) between arrest and a probable cause determination.
21.

As a matter of policy and practice, Harris County accepts into its custody, and keeps

in its custody, warrantless arrestees transferred to the jail from other arresting agencies or arrested
by the Sheriffs Department, without regard for how much time has passed since the individual
was arrested and even though Harris County knows that no probable cause determination has been
made.

Case 4:16-cv-03745 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/16 Page 6 of 18

22.

As a matter of policy and practice, Harris County continues to detain warrantless

arresteeswhether arrested by Harris County itself or another agencyfor whom there has been
no probable cause determination within a reasonable period of time, which is 48 hours at the
longest.
23.

Warrantless arrestees in Harris County custody appear from the jail by videolink

before a magistrate, known as a Harris County Hearing Officer, who presides over the hearings
from a courtroom in the Harris County courthouse.
24.

These hearings are referred to locally as magistrations, Article 15.17 hearings,

or probable cause hearings.

25.

At any point during the jails booking process, before or after the probable cause

hearing, an arrestee can pay a predetermined money bail and be released. The Harris County
Sheriffs Department, through its jail personnel, assembles groups of roughly 20 to 45 arrestees
throughout the day, every day, for purposes of attending these hearings by videolink.
26.

The Countys employees and agents know the time and date of arrest for every

warrantless arrestee, regardless of the arresting authority. Such information is recorded and stored
in computer systems readily available to them. County employees and agents know how long a
warrantless arrestee has been in custody.
27.

Like all arresting agencies within the County, the Harris County Sheriffs

Department, when it makes arrests, uses the DAs hotline and the DIMS system. The County and
its employees and agents know that the statements that ADAs present to Hearing Officers are not
sworn. The County and its employees, officers, and agents also have access to jail and court
records, which do not contain a sworn statement of the factual basis for probable cause findings.

Case 4:16-cv-03745 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/16 Page 7 of 18

28.

The County and its employees and agents know that, in almost every case, no

probable cause determination is made by a neutral magistrate prior to the video hearings for which
the Sheriffs Department assembles groups of arrestees.
29.

At the hearings, the Hearing Officer calls an individuals name and reads the

charge. That individual gets up and stands in the middle of a red square on the floor of the room
in the jail. An assistant district attorney, who is in the courtroom with the Hearing Officer, reads
from the DIMS report and represents that the statement of facts in the report are the facts that led
to the arrest.
30.

Harris County does not provide defense attorneys at this hearing.

31.

County employees and agents, including Sheriffs deputies and employees of

Pretrial Services, are present throughout the hearings. They know that the information the ADA
reads is from the DIMS system. They know that no oaths are sworn (nor affirmations made) at
the hearings.
32.

The statements the ADA reads, and on the basis of which Hearing Officers find

probable cause in almost every case, are not supported by oath or affirmation. In other words, they
are not signed under penalty of perjury. They are not sworn.
33.

On the basis of the unsworn factual statements read by the ADA, the Hearing

Officer decides whether there was probable cause for arrest. Hearing Officers find probable cause
in almost every case.
34.

Every year, Harris County permits unsworn statements to provide the basis for

findings of probable cause for further detention in tens of thousands of cases involving warrantless
arrestees.

Case 4:16-cv-03745 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/16 Page 8 of 18

35.

Sometimes a Hearing Officer concludes that there is not enough information to

determine whether probable cause existed for the arrest. In these cases, the Hearing Officer tells
the Sheriffs Department to continue detaining the person, and urges the ADA to contact the
arresting officer to find out more about the circumstances leading to the arrest.
36.

As a matter of policy and practice, the Sheriffs Department continues to detain

warrantless arrestees in these circumstances while the ADA investigates further. For each of these
warrantless arrestees, the Sheriffs Department knows that there has been no finding of probable
cause to support continued detention. The Sheriffs Department also knows that the sole purpose
of further detention is to allow the ADA time to investigate. If, during this process, an arrestee
can pay the predetermined scheduled bail and is otherwise eligible for release, he will be released.
37.

As a matter of policy and practice, the Sheriffs Department brings arrestees who

are not released to a subsequent probable cause hearing docket. At the subsequent docket, when
the arrestees name is called, the ADA reports the results of her investigation to the Hearing
Officer, again using unsworn statements, and the Hearing Officer decides whether probable cause
existed for the arrest.
38.

The process of setting bail and finding probable cause is a rote exercise; the

hearings usually last approximately one minute.

39.

If a Hearing Officer makes a finding of probable cause, Harris County will continue

the pretrial detention of the warrantless arrestee despite the fact that Harris County officials know
that the finding was not supported by sworn statements.
40.

The vast majority of warrantless arrestees are held incommunicado from the

moment they are taken into Harris County custody until sometime after their magistration hearing.

Case 4:16-cv-03745 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/16 Page 9 of 18

41.

Following every arrest, an arrestees case information and related documents

become publicly available on the District Court Clerks website. Once the arrestee is in Harris
County custody, the arrestees online case records will indicate that fact. The arrestees specific
location will be shown as the inmate processing center at 1201 Commerce Street.
42.

While the individual is in processing, she is completely unavailable for an attorney

(or other) visit and cannot be contacted. 4 Jail officials state that individuals who are in processing
are actually located in the basement of one of four jail buildings, and the only way to find a specific
person is for a guard to walk through the cell blocks and call the persons name.
43.

However, jail officials also state that, if a person who is in processing is able to pay

the scheduled money bail, she will be found and released. Thus, during this period of time, poor
arrestees are held without any ability to contact the outside world, but an individual who has money
can purchase her release from jail.
44.

Any arrestee who was not assigned to a housing unit before her probable cause

hearing will remain inaccessible to attorneys and everyone else outside the jail after the hearing
until the jail assigns the individual to a housing unit.
45.

It is only after being assigned to a housing unit that an arrestee can be contacted by

anyone outside the jail and will be scheduled for a hearing in a County Court at Law.
46.

A sheriffs deputy at 1201 Commerce Street was asked to produce for attorney

visits several individuals who had attended their probable cause hearings within the previous 24
hours. After looking for the men for an hour, the deputy stated that the men could not be seen,
even by an attorney, until after they had been assigned to a housing unit in the jail, which had not

The Sheriffs own website states that inmates are not available for visits while they are in the processing center. See
http://www.harriscountyso.org/JailInfo/inmate_info_inmate_faqs.aspx
4

Case 4:16-cv-03745 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/16 Page 10 of 18

yet happened. He said that the individuals were all in the basements of one of four buildings, but
he did not know which one. The deputy provided a list of the four facilities in which the arrestees
might be located (1200 Baker Street Jail; 701 North San Jacinto; 711 North San Jacinto Street;
1307 Baker Street).
47.

Shortly after that conversation, a sheriffs deputy at the jail building at 1200 Baker

Street confirmed that the same men could not be contacted until after they had been assigned to a
housing unit.
48.

The deputies stated that it would take 24 to 36 hours for that to happen, during

which time no one would be able to reach these men, including any attorney. The sheriffs deputy
said that they could not be found for the purpose of an attorney visit, but they would be found and
released if money bond was posted.
49.

As a matter of policy and practice, warrantless arrestees are released from pretrial

detention only when they either pay their bail amounts or resolve their cases.
Lucas Lomas
50.

Lucas Lomas is 26 years old. He was arrested without a warrant on December 24,

2016, for theft, a felony offense.

51.

On December 25, 2016, a Hearing Officer found probable cause in his case and

imposed a secured financial condition of release of $15,000. The Hearing Officers finding of
probable cause was made on the basis of unsworn statements.
52.

Mr. Lomas is currently in jail. He cannot afford to pay the secured financial

condition of release. If he could pay the amount required, he would be released.

53.

Mr. Lomas is scheduled to see a Criminal Court at Law Judge for the first time on

January 3, 2017.

10

Case 4:16-cv-03745 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/16 Page 11 of 18

Carlos Ealgin
54.

Carlos Ealgin is 27 years old. He was arrested without a warrant on December 26,

2016, for possession of marijuana under two ounces, which is a misdemeanor offense.
55.

Later on December 26, 2016, a Hearing Officer found probable cause in his case

and imposed a secured financial condition of release of $15,000. The Hearing Officers finding
of probable cause was made on the basis of unsworn statements.
56.

Mr. Ealgin is currently in jail. He cannot afford to pay the secured financial

condition required for his release. If he could pay the amount required, he would be released.
57.

Mr. Ealgin is scheduled to see a County Criminal Court at Law Judge for the first

time on January 3, 2017.

Class Action Allegations
58.

The named Plaintiffs bring this action, on behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated, for the purpose of asserting the claims alleged in this Complaint on a common
basis.
59.

A class action is a superior means, and the only practicable means, by which the

named Plaintiffs and unknown Class members can challenge the Defendants unlawful policy and
practice of failing to provide warrantless arrestees with prompt determinations of probable cause
supported by an oath or affirmation.
60.

This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a class action pursuant to

Rule 23(a)(1)(4) and Rule 23(b)(2), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
61.

This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy

requirements of those provisions.

62.

The Plaintiffs propose the following Class and subclass:

11

Case 4:16-cv-03745 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/16 Page 12 of 18

a. A Class seeking injunctive and declaratory relief: All warrantless arrestees who
are currently detained, or will be detained, by Harris County and who have not
been provided, or will not be provided, a prompt, neutral determination of
probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.
i. A Subclass seeking injunctive and declaratory relief: All warrantless
misdemeanor arrestees who are currently detained, or will be detained,
by Harris County and who have not been provided, or will not be
provided, a neutral determination of probable cause supported by oath
or affirmation within 24 hours of arrest. 5
Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)
63.

The individuals in the class are so numerous that joinder of all members would be

impracticable.
64.

About 75,000 people are arrested without a warrant in Harris County every year.

Only 22% of those people are released on bond prior to booking into the Harris County jail,
according to publicly available data. The rest are detained by Harris County. 48.2% of those
detainees remain in Harris County custody through the disposition of their cases (or for at least
one month of pretrial detention, if their cases are not resolved and they are not released within one
month) because they are unable to post a bond. 6 None was provided a prompt determination of
probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. The number of current and future arrestees
subject to this policy will be well into the tens of thousands. The Class easily satisfies the
numerosity requirement.

Absent extraordinary circumstances not present in this case, detention after a warrantless arrest without a neutral
determination of probable cause is presumptively unreasonable beyond 48 hours. Cty. of Riverside v. McLaughlin,
500 U.S. 44, 45 (1991). Moreover, the facts and circumstances of a particular jurisdiction can render periods of less
than 48 hours unreasonable. Plaintiffs propose this initial subclass because Texas law and the Harris County Local
Rules of Court require warrantless misdemeanor arrestees to be given a probable cause determination after 24 hours
or to be released from custody. Thus, at least in Harris County, detention beyond 24 hours for those arrested for
misdemeanor offenses without a warrant is presumptively unreasonable because the local and state governments have
already determined that there is no legal or factual need for any further delay.
6

Pretrial detainees who post bond after one month of pretrial detention are not recorded in publicly available statistics.

12

Case 4:16-cv-03745 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/16 Page 13 of 18

65.

Because the joinder of thousands of cases is impracticable, this case satisfies the

numerosity requirement.
Commonality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2).
66.

The relief sought is common to all members of the Class, and common questions

of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class. The named Plaintiffs seek relief concerning
whether the Defendants policies, practices, and procedures violate the rights of the Class members
and relief mandating that the Defendant change its policies, practices, and procedures so that the
constitutional rights of the Class members will be protected in the future.
67.

Common legal and factual questions arise from one central scheme: the Countys

policy of refusing to release warrantless arrestees even when there has not been a prompt probable
cause determination by a neutral magistrate supported by an oath or affirmation. The County has
operated this policy in materially the same manner every day. The resolution of these legal and
factual issues will determine whether all of the members of each Class are entitled to the relief that
they seek.
Among the most important, but not the only, common questions of law and fact are:
a.

Whether it violates the United States Constitution to detain warrantless

arrestees for unreasonable periods of time without a neutral finding of
probable cause on the basis of statements supported by oath or affirmation;

b.

Whether it violates Texas state law to detain misdemeanor arrestees for more
than 24 hours without a neutral determination of probable cause supported by
oath or affirmation;

c.

Whether the County maintains a policy of detaining warrantless arrestees

without a prompt finding of probable cause that is supported by oath or
affirmation.
Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3).

68.

The named Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the other Class Members,

and the named Plaintiffs have the same interests in this case as all other Class Members. Each

13

Case 4:16-cv-03745 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/16 Page 14 of 18

Named Plaintiff was arrested without a warrant and is currently being detained beyond a
reasonable period of time (48 hours at the longest) without a constitutionally adequate probable
cause hearing.
69.

The answer to whether the County maintains an unlawful policy of detaining

warrantless arrestees for an unreasonable period, including for longer than 48 hours, in the absence
of a judicial determination of probable cause supported by oath or affirmation will determine the
claims of the named Plaintiffs and every other Class Member.
70.

If the named Plaintiffs succeed in their claims that the Countys policies and

practices concerning warrantless arrestees violate their rights, that ruling will likewise benefit
every other member of the Class.
Adequacy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).
71.

The named Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class because their interest

in the vindication of the legal claims that they raise is entirely aligned with the interests of the
other Class Members, each of whom has the same basic constitutional and state-law claims. The
named Plaintiffs are members of the Class, and there are no known conflicts of interest among the
members of the Class, all of whom have a similar interest in vindicating their constitutional rights
in the face of Defendants policy.
72.

Plaintiffs are represented by Civil Rights Corps and the Texas Fair Defense Project,

whose attorneys have experience in litigating complex civil rights matters in federal court and
extensive knowledge of both the details of Defendants scheme and the relevant constitutional and
statutory law. Counsel from Civil Rights Corps has been lead counsel in well over a dozen major
federal class actions challenging the constitutionality of post-arrest systems in Alabama, Georgia,
Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas, and other states.

14

Case 4:16-cv-03745 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/16 Page 15 of 18

73.

Class counsel have conducted an investigation into Harris Countys policy of

detaining warrantless arrestees without a prompt, neutral determination of probable cause

supported by oath or affirmation. This investigation has included interviews with witnesses,
municipal officials and employees, inmates, prosecutors and defense attorneys practicing in local
courts, community members, and national experts in constitutional law, post-arrest procedure, law
enforcement, judicial procedures, criminal law, pretrial services, and jails.
74.

Class counsel have a detailed understanding of state law and practices as they relate

to federal constitutional requirements. Counsel have studied the way that these systems function
in other cities and counties in order to investigate the wide array of lawful options available to
municipalities that seek to comply with the Constitution.
75.

As a result, counsel have devoted significant time and resources to becoming

intimately familiar with the Countys scheme and with the relevant state and federal laws and
procedures that can and should govern it. The interests of the Class Members will be fairly and
adequately protected by the Plaintiffs and their attorneys.
Rule 23(b)(2)
76.

Class certification is appropriate because the Defendants, through the policies,

practices, and procedures that make up its post-arrest process for warrantless arrestees, have acted
in the same unconstitutional manner with respect to all Class Members. The Defendant has a
policy and practice of detaining people beyond a reasonable period of time (48 hours at the longest)
even though Defendant knows that there has been no probable cause finding supported by an oath
or affirmation, as is necessary in order to continue detention after a warrantless arrest.
77.

The Class therefore seeks declaratory and injunctive relief that will prevent the

Defendants from detaining arrestees beyond a reasonable period of time but in any event no

15

Case 4:16-cv-03745 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/16 Page 16 of 18

longer than 48 hours without a neutral determination of probable cause supported by oath or
affirmation. Because the putative Class challenges the Countys practices as unconstitutional
through declaratory and injunctive relief that would apply to every Class Member, Rule 23(b)(2)
class certification is appropriate and necessary.
78.

Injunctive relief compelling the County to comply with this constitutional right will

similarly protect each member of the Class from being subjected to the Countys unlawful policies
and practices. A declaration and injunction stating that the County must provide a neutral finding
of probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and that the County cannot detain someone
beyond a reasonable period of time (48 hours at the longest) without a finding of probable cause
supported by oath or affirmation would provide relief to every member of the Class. Therefore,
declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the Rule 23(b)(2) Class as a whole is appropriate.
Claims for Relief
Count One: Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
79.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-79.

80.

After a warrantless arrest, the Fourth Amendment requires a prompt, neutral

determination of probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Cty.
of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991); Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975). This
constitutional provision is presumptively violated after 48 hours absent extraordinary
circumstances, which are not present here. Defendant Harris County violates Plaintiffs rights by
continuing to keep them in custody after a warrantless arrest without providing a prompt, neutral
determination of probable cause supported by an oath or affirmation.
Count Two: Defendant Falsely Imprisons Plaintiffs in Violation of Texas law
81.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 181.

16

Case 4:16-cv-03745 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/16 Page 17 of 18

82.

Texas law requires that all misdemeanor arrestees be brought before a magistrate

within 24 hours or be released on an affordable bond, and requires that all felony arrestees be
brought before a magistrate within 48 hours or be released on an affordable bond. Tex. Code Crim.
P. Ann. 17.033(a)(b). If the arrestee cannot afford any bond, she must be released on a personal
bond immediately. Id. Therefore, any person in Harris County custody after a warrantless arrest
for 24 hours on a misdemeanor charge or 48 hours on a felony charge who was otherwise eligible
for release but unable to secure release and who was not offered a personal bond is unlawfully
detained. Harris County, therefore, falsely imprisons Plaintiffs and Class Members who are
detained beyond these time periods.
REQUESTS FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a class of others similarly
situated, request that this Court issue the following relief:
a. A declaration that Harris County violates Plaintiffs rights by detaining them after a
warrantless arrest without a neutral and prompt determination of probable cause based on
facts sworn by oath or affirmation.
b. An injunction requiring Harris County to ensure that all warrantless arrestees in its custody
receive a prompt determination of probable cause by a neutral magistrate based on facts
supported by oath or affirmation consistent with Texas and federal law.
c. An order and judgment granting reasonable attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1988 and 18 U.S.C. 1964, and any other relief this Court deems just and proper.

17

Case 4:16-cv-03745 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/16 Page 18 of 18

Dated: December 28, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Rebecca Bernhardt
Rebecca Bernhardt (TX Bar No. 24001729)
Attorney-in-Charge
Susanne Pringle (TX Bar No. 24083686)
Texas Fair Defense Project
314 E Highland Mall Blvd, Suite 108
Austin, Texas 78752
(512) 637-5220
rbernhardt@fairdefense.org
springle@fairdefense.org
/s/ Elizabeth Rossi
Elizabeth Rossi (Pro hac vice pending)
Charlie Gerstein (Pro hac vice pending)
Alec Karakatsanis (Pro hac vice pending)
Civil Rights Corps
910 17th Street NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 681-2409
elizabeth@civilrightscorps.org
charlie@civilrightscorps.org
alec@civilrightscorps.org

18

JS 44 (Rev. 08/16)

Case 4:16-cv-03745 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/16 Page 1 of 2

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

Lucas Lomas, Carlos Ealgin, on behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

Harris County, Texas

Harris

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

NOTE:

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

Attorneys (If Known)

Civil Rights Corps, 910 17th Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC
20006; Texas Fair Defense Project, 314 East Highland Mall Blvd #108,
Austin, TX 78752

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only)

1

U.S. Government
Plaintiff

Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)

U.S. Government
Defendant

Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

Vince Ryan, Harris County Attorney, 1019 Congress, 15th Floor,

Houston, Texas 77002, (713) 755-5101

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State
1

REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property

PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
448 Education

and One Box for Defendant)

PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
4
4
of Business In This State

Incorporated and Principal Place

of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country

Foreign Nation

Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

TORTS

110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veterans Benefits
160 Stockholders Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise

DEF
1

Citizen of Another State

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only)

CONTRACT

Harris

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PERSONAL INJURY
365 Personal Injury Product Liability
367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal
Property Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
463 Alien Detainee
510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
530 General
535 Death Penalty
Other:
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement

625 Drug Related Seizure

of Property 21 USC 881
690 Other

BANKRUPTCY
422 Appeal 28 USC 158
423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
840 Trademark

LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act

SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))

FEDERAL TAX SUITS

870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
871 IRSThird Party
26 USC 7609

IMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions

OTHER STATUTES
375 False Claims Act
376 Qui Tam (31 USC
3729(a))
400 State Reapportionment
410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
895 Freedom of Information
Act
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes

V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)

1 Original
Proceeding

2 Removed from
State Court

6 Multidistrict
Litigation Transfer
(specify)
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
Remanded from
Appellate Court

4 Reinstated or
Reopened

5 Transferred from
Another District

8 Multidistrict
Litigation Direct File

42 U.S.C. 1983, 28 U.S.C. 2201;

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:

Detaining warrantless arrestees without providing a prompt probable cause determination based on sworn facts

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

VII. REQUESTED IN
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
JUDGE
DATE

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

Yes
No
JURY DEMAND:

DEMAND $

DOCKET NUMBER

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

/s/ Rebecca Bernhardt

12/28/2016
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #

AMOUNT

Print

APPLYING IFP

Save As...

JUDGE

MAG. JUDGE

Reset

Case 4:16-cv-03745 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/16 Page 2 of 2

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 08/16)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a)

(b)

(c)

Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".

II.

Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

III.

Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.

IV.

Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V.

Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.

VI.

Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII.

Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.