United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
JACOB W. POPE PLAINTIFF
SHERIFF JOHN MONTGOMERY, Baxter County, Arkansas; DANIELLE CAMPFIELD, Jail Administrator for the Baxter County Detention Center; and BAXTER COUNTY, ARKANSAS DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is the Report and Recommendation
("R&R") (Doc. 52) of the Honorable Mark E.
Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District
of Arkansas, submitted in this case on September 5, 2017,
regarding a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 44) filed by
Defendants Sheriff John Montgomery, Jail Administrator
Danielle Campfield, and Baxter County, Arkansas. The
Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendants' Motion.
Plaintiff Jacob W. Pope filed objections to the R&R on
October 26, 2017. (Doc. 57).
Court has conducted a de novo review as to all
proposed findings and recommendations to which Mr. Pope has
raised specific objections. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). As explained herein, the objections are
OVERRULED, and the R&R
is ADOPTED AS MODIFIED below.
events at the heart of this case began on Wednesday, December
12, 2012, when Plaintiff was arrested without a warrant on
charges of terroristic threatening in Mountain Home,
Arkansas. (Doc. 46-3, p. 17). An ex parte probable
cause determination for the arrest was made by a judicial
officer on December 13, 2012. Id. at 7-8. On
December 14, 2012, the following things occurred: (1) bond
was set at $50, 000.00, (2) a criminal information was filed
for the charge of terroristic threatening, and (3) a bench
warrant issued. Id. at 6. The arrest warrant was
executed and returned on December 18, 2012. Id. at
10. On December 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for a writ
of habeas corpus (Doc. 48-1, p. 13) and a motion for bond
reduction. Id. at 15. Plaintiffs initial appearance
did not take place until December 19, 2012, and the amount of
his bond was reduced at that time. Plaintiff posted bond that
time of Plaintiff's arrest in 2012, General Order No. 13
"was in existence and being used as a guideline" in
Baxter County even though it was not formally adopted by
Sheriff Montgomery until 2013. (Doc. 46-2, p. 1). General
Order No. 13 states the following County policy as to first
1. Every person arrested with or without a warrant who is not
released by citation or other lawful manner is entitled to
physically appear before a judicial officer without
unnecessary delay so that the person can: i) have the charges
read, ii) be told of his right to remain silent, iii) be told
of his right to an attorney, and iv) ask for release. Rule
8.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure shall apply.
2. Unless a judicial officer orders otherwise, "without
unnecessary delay" shall mean not more than seventy-two
(72) hours and the jail staff shall attempt to have each
person arrested brought before a judicial officer within
seventy-two (72) hours of the arrest for a Rule 8.1 First
3. If a person is not taken before a judicial officer within
seventy-two (72) hours after being detained, the Sheriff,
Chief Deputy, or Jail Administrator is to be notified so that
a Rule 5.2 "Sheriffs Citation" release decision can
be made and/or a Court Order can be obtained to permit the
jail to continue to hold the detainee past seventy-two (72)
hours without a Rule 8.1 Hearing.
(Doc. 46-4, pp. 1-2).
alleges in his Complaint that the seven days he was detained
prior to his first appearance violated the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Doc. 31). Plaintiff claims that
Sheriff Montgomery, Jail Administrator Campfield, and Baxter
County are jointly responsible for these due process
violations. He further maintains that Defendants' failure
to properly train and supervise their subordinates deprived
him of his constitutional rights. Lastly, he alleges that his
bond was unreasonably high in violation of his Eighth
Amendment and due process rights. Defendants filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. 44) requesting that all of
Plaintiffs claims be dismissed.
Magistrate Judge conducted a summary judgment hearing on
April 13, 2017, to allow Plaintiff the opportunity to orally
respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment and present any
evidence he desired. Following the hearing, the Magistrate
Judge issued an R&R in which he concluded that, in the
totality of the circumstances, Plaintiff's extended
detention prior to his initial appearance did not violate the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally,
the Magistrate Judge determined that Sheriff Montgomery could
not be held liable for a failure to train or supervise his
subordinates concerning extended detentions. Finally, the
Magistrate Judge found that because Defendants were not
involved in setting Plaintiffs bond, they were entitled to
summary judgment on Plaintiffs excessive bond claim. (Doc.
52, pp. 13).
raised several objections to the Magistrate Judge's
R&R. These objections fall into three categories: (1)
objections relating to the format of the summary judgment
hearing; (2) factual objections; and (3) objections relating
to the substantive legal arguments.
with Plaintiffs objections concerning the format of the
summary judgment hearing, he complains that: (1) the hearing
was held over 100 miles from his home; (2) he was not
informed that he had to pay for parking; (3) he was not
allowed to bring his smart phone into the hearing; (4) the
hearing was set up in a question/answer format as opposed to
narrative form; and (5) the Magistrate Judge ...