## Facts

- The City of Jennings, Missouri jailed impoverished residents for failure to pay fines and costs tied to traffic tickets and other minor municipal violations.
- Before jailing people for nonpayment, the City did not conduct a meaningful inquiry into the person’s ability to pay and did not provide counsel.
- Individuals who lacked funds were allegedly told they would remain jailed indefinitely unless they paid the amount demanded.
- Jail conditions were alleged to be unsanitary and degrading, providing “no dignity” to those confined.
- The amount required for release could increase or decrease from day to day without a reliable explanation or consistent standard.
- About once a week, the City brought some jailed individuals before a municipal judge and told them they would stay jailed until they paid a specified portion of their debt.
- During these proceedings, individuals were not provided with counsel and were not advised of legal rights.
- The City locked the courtroom doors during the weekly proceedings, preventing members of the public from observing.
- Named plaintiff Samantha Jenkins lived on disability benefits and food stamps and attempted to pay $100 per month toward municipal debt.
- On one occasion, courthouse staff refused to let Jenkins enter the building and told her to return the next day; when she returned, staff said her payment was “late” and increased what she owed to $400.
- Jenkins could not pay $400 and was jailed; she was then told it would cost $700 for release, which her family raised to secure her release.
- Jenkins was later jailed again after the City claimed she owed $2,400 in unpaid fines and fees.
- Jenkins and other residents filed a putative class action against the City alleging constitutional violations arising from the City’s fine-and-fee enforcement, jailing practices, and related court procedures.

## Issues

1. Whether the City violated the Fourteenth Amendment by jailing people for nonpayment of fines and fees without notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, including an inquiry into ability to pay.
2. Whether detaining people until they pay a fixed or fluctuating sum—without individualized, reliable standards—constitutes unconstitutional wealth-based detention under due process and equal protection principles.
3. Whether jailing and related municipal-court proceedings that threatened continued incarceration, without providing counsel or advising of rights, violated constitutional guarantees.
4. Whether locking courtroom doors and excluding the public from weekly proceedings violated rights to open judicial proceedings and due process.
5. Whether the alleged unsanitary and degrading jail conditions violated constitutional minimum standards for confinement.
6. What forward-looking relief the federal court could order to end the challenged practices and require lawful procedures for fines, bonds, and jail operations.

## Decision

- The parties resolved the case through a settlement framework resulting in a court-entered permanent injunction providing forward-looking relief.
- The injunction barred the City and its agents from using secured money bail for people in City custody at arrest (with or without a warrant) or on the initial warrant for violations prosecuted by the City.
- The injunction required the City to use lawful procedures that do not depend on a person’s ability to pay, including processes consistent with assessing ability to pay and using noncustodial alternatives.
- The injunction authorized the City to pursue collection by lawful civil mechanisms, including converting certain unsecured bond obligations into civil money judgments under Missouri law after nonappearance.
- The injunction restructured municipal-court collection practices, including ending “payment docket” style practices described in public summaries and shifting collection toward civil judgment enforcement rather than jail-based pressure.
- The injunction required the City to meet legal standards of care in the jail and address conditions of confinement concerns raised in the complaint.
- The litigation concluded without a published merits opinion; the operative outcome was the consent-based injunctive relief approved and entered by the district court.

## Legal Principles

- Due process generally requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before the government deprives a person of liberty.
- When incarceration is used or threatened for failure to pay fines or fees, the Constitution requires procedures that distinguish inability to pay from willful refusal and that consider lawful alternatives to jail.
- Wealth-based detention—holding a person in custody solely because they cannot pay an amount set without meaningful individualized review—raises due process and equal protection concerns.
- When municipal-court proceedings function to impose or continue incarceration, constitutional protections may require meaningful advisement of rights and access to counsel.
- Court proceedings connected to deprivation of liberty are ordinarily expected to be open to the public; closing proceedings can create due process and open-court concerns.
- Jail conditions must satisfy constitutional minimum standards and may not be unsanitary, unsafe, or degrading beyond what lawful detention entails.
- Federal courts may enter consent judgments and permanent injunctions to require prospective changes in municipal practices that allegedly violate federal constitutional rights.

## Conclusion

In Jenkins v. The City of Jennings, indigent residents alleged the City used its municipal court and jail to pressure payment of minor fines by jailing people without an ability-to-pay inquiry, without counsel, through closed weekly proceedings, and in unsanitary conditions. The case ended through a court-entered permanent injunction and related settlement relief that barred secured money bail at arrest and on initial warrants for City prosecutions, required lawful procedures addressing inability to pay, shifted collection toward civil mechanisms rather than custody, and required compliance with legal standards for jail conditions.


Jenkins v. The City of Jennings, 4:15-cv-00252 (2015)