![]() Pursuant to their respective contracts with the County (the ‘Contracts’), the companies add their own fees and surcharges on top of those court debts and continue to supervise the collection of even greater amounts of money from probationers who cannot afford to pay their debts. The goal of CPS and PSI (collectively, the ‘private companies’ or the ‘companies’) is to maximize their own profits by acting as probation officers for the purpose of collecting fines, costs, fees, and litigation taxes (these legal financial obligations will be referred to collectively as ‘court debts’) owed to the court following convictions for minor misdemeanor offenses. They are victims of the Defendants’ conspiracy to extract as much money as possible from impoverished misdemeanor probationers through a pattern of illegal racketeering activity, including threats of arrest and jailing, physical confinement, and extended periods of supervised probation due to nonpayment of debts owed to the court and to the private companies. The named plaintiffs and the members of the putative plaintiff classes (collectively ‘Plaintiffs’) in this case live in poverty and were assigned to supervised probation with one of the Defendant companies. This class action lawsuit challenges systemic constitutional and statutory violations and an illegal extortion scheme in Giles County, Tennessee, which has allowed two for-profit companies – Community Probation Services, LLC and PSI Probation, LLC – to transform the County’s misdemeanor probation system into a machine for generating their own profit on the backs of Giles County’s most impoverished residents. 2 As an overview to their claims, Plaintiffs allege as follows: 1. Mitchell’s death on this litigation, as that issue has not been addressed by the parties. The Court’s resolution of the arguments herein does not address the effect of Ms. 1 During the pendency of this litigation, Plaintiff Tanya Mitchell passed away, and Plaintiffs have filed a pending motion to substitute her estate as a party for purposes of Counts 7, 11, 21, and 23. The named Plaintiffs seek to represent a class to obtain damages and injunctive relief on their claims. Plaintiffs assert constitutional and state law claims against Giles County and Sheriff Kyle Helton. Plaintiffs assert constitutional claims, claims brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), and state law claims against the CPS Defendants and the PSI Defendants. Plaintiffs Mitchell and Brandon allege they have been supervised by “the PSI Defendants” or “PSI” (Progressive Sentencing, Inc., PSI-Probation II, LLC, PSIProbation, L.L.C., Tennessee Correctional Services, LLC, Timothy Cook, Markeyta Bledsoe, and Harriet Thompson). ![]() Plaintiffs McNeil, Johnson, and Hilfort allege they have been supervised by the “CPS Defendants” or “CPS” (Community Probation Services, LLC, Community Probation Services, L.L.C., Community Probation Services, and Patricia McNair). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Karen McNeil, Lesley Johnson, Tanya Mitchell, 1 Indya Hilfort, and Lucinda Brandon allege they are indigent individuals who have been placed on probation for misdemeanor offenses by the Giles County courts, and that their probation is supervised by one of the two named private probation companies. Count 6 (the due process claim for equitable relief) Count 14 (the equal protection and due process claim for equitable relief) Count 16 (the unjust enrichment claim) Counts 19 and 20 (the abuse of process claims) and Count 24 (the civil conspiracy claim) remain for trial. Accordingly, Count 1 (the RICO claim) Count 5 (the due process claim for damages) Count 9 (the equal protection claim for damages) Count 10 (the equal protection claim for equitable relief) and Count 13 (the equal protection and due process claim for damages) are dismissed. 369) is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. 374) is DENIED, and the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 374) with regards to Plaintiff Tanya Mitchell’s claims for injunctive relief. 384), requesting they be allowed to join the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. The PSI Defendants have filed a Notice (Doc. 389), and the CPS Defendants’ Reply (Doc. Also pending before the Court are the CPS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. ![]() ![]() 387), and the CPS Defendants’ Reply (Doc. INTRODUCTION Pending before the Court are the CPS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 1:18-cv-00033 JUDGE CAMPBELL MAGISTRATE JUDGE FRENSLEY MEMORANDUM I. COMMUNITY PROBATION SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants. 414 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE COLUMBIA DIVISION KAREN MCNEIL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Community Probation Services, LLC et al Doc. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |