Munijudge v City of Dallas

Published on May 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 74 | Comments: 0 | Views: 343
of 19
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content


NO. ) ') q b D S

TIMOTEO F. GONZALEZ,
DAVID INDORF, RUTH C. LOGAN
and CHERYL WILLIAMS
Plaintiffs,
v.
)(
)(
)(
)(
)(
)(
)(
MIKE RAWLINGS, MAYOR, )(
COUl'JCILMEMBER JERRY R. ALLEN, )(
COUl'JCILMEMBER MONICA R. ALONZO, )(
COUNCILMEMBER TENNELL ATKINS, )(
COUl'JCILMEMBER DWAINE R. CARA WA Y)(
COUNCILMEMBER CAROLYN DA VI )(
COUNCILMEMBER SANDY GREYS ON, )(
COUNCILMEMBER VONCIEL JONES HILL,)(
COUNCILMEMBER ANGELA HUNT, )(
COUNCILMEMBER DELIA JASSO, )(
COUNCILMEMBER SHEFFIE KADANE, )(
COUNCILMEMBER LINDA KOOP, )(
COUNCILMEMBER ANN MARGOLIN, and )(
COUNCILMEMBER PAULINE MEDRANO )(

JUDICIAL DISTRICT
--
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
AND PERMANENT INJUCTION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Plaintiffs Judge Timoteo F. Gonzalez, Judge David C. Indorf, Judge Ruth C. Logan and
Judge Cheryl D. Williams ("Plaintiffs" or "Judges") respectfully files this, their Original Petition
and Application for Temporary and Permanent Injunction and, for cause of action, would show
as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to preclude the Dallas City Council from purporting to
publish the Ordinance appointing Municipal Judges as the result ofthe vote taken by City
Council on August 22,2012 because the Dallas City Councilmembers violated the City of
Dallas Code Section 13.5 regarding the appointment and evaluation of municipal judges.
1
The Judges currently serve on the Municipal Court as full-time judges and have served in
that capacity from two years to thirteen years. They have consistently received positive
reviews. The City Council has a history of violating judges' rights and removing them from
the bench. In 2006, the City Council attempted to wrongfully remove another Municipal
Judge, Elizabeth Frizell, from her position on the Municipal Court because she was a
candidate for a judgeship in Dallas County Criminal Court. In January, 2012, the City
Council attempted to wrongfully remove another Municipal Judge, Phyllis Lister Brown,
from her position on the Municipal Court because she is a candidate for a judgeship of the
162
nd
District Court. In this instance, the City Council has gone even further by going
outside the law and manipulating the independence of the judiciary.
Accordingly, the Judges seek from this Court (1) a declaration that the city
council did not follow the Dallas City Code, and (2) injunctive relief precluding the City Council
from publishing the Ordinance appointing Municipal Judges as the result of the vote taken by
City Council on August 22, 2012.
II. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
1. Plaintiffs request that discovery be conducted in this case under a Level Three
discovery control plan.
III. PARTIES
2. Timoteo F. Gonzalez is an individual residing at 8406 Flower Meadow Drive,
Dallas, Texas.
3. David C. Indorfis an individual residing at 7602 Eastern Avenue, Dallas, Texas
75209. (Mailing address: 5600 W. Lovers Lane, Suite 116-221, Dallas, Texas 75209).
4. Ruth C. Logan is an individual residing at 5624 Ventana Trail, Dallas, Texas.
2
5. Cheryl D. Williams is an individual residing at 8553 Quicksilver Dr., Dallas,
Texas, 75249.
6. Each of the Defendants Mike Rawlings, Jerry R. Allen, Monica R. Alonzo,
Tennell Atkins, Dwaine R. Caraway, Carolyn R. Davis, Scott Griggs, Sandy Greyson, Vonciel
Jones Hill, Angela Hunt, Delia Jasso, Sheffie Kadane, Linda Koop, Ann Margolin, and Pauline
Medrano (the "City Council Defendants") is a member of the City Council for the City of Dallas,
the body which Plaintiff believes will take the actions hereby sought to be enjoined. The City
Council Defendants may be served with process by serving the City of Dallas Secretary Rosa
Rios at 1500 Marilla Street, Dallas, Texas 75201.
IV. JURISDICTION & VENUE
7. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections
37.003 and 65.021 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as Plaintiffs seek declaratory
and injunctive relief. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because the City
Council Defendants each reside in Dallas County, Texas.
8. Venue of this action is proper in Dallas County, Texas, pursuant to Section
15.002(a)(I) and (3) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, because all or a substantial
part of the events or omission giving rise to the claim have occurred or will occur in Dallas
County, Texas.
V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The Judges Currently Serve as a Municipal Court Judges.
3
9. The Judges were last appointed to the Municipal Court in the City of Dallas by
the Dallas City Council on or about June 23,2010. Judge Williams has served the City of Dallas
as a full-time judge for the past 13 years, prior to that she served as an associate judge for 4
years. Judge Gonzalez has served the City of Dallas as a full-time judge for the past 6 years, and
prior to that he served as an associate judge fori 0 years. Judge Indorfhas served the City of
Dallas for the past 2 years, one prior appointment as a full-time judge and 17 years as an
associate judge. Judge Logan has served the City of Dallas as a full-time judge for the past 2
years, and prior to that she served as an associate judge for 8 years.
10. During their tenure, the Judges have consistently received positive reviews of
their performance from defense attorneys, and the Chief Administrative Judges Michael O'Neal,
Jay Robinson and C. Victor Lander.
11. At no time has any disciplinary action been taken against the Judges in their
capacity as Municipal Judges, or in any other capacity.
12. As authorized by Chapter 30 of the Texas Government Code, the Dallas City
Charter provides that Municipal Court judges are evaluated by the City Council and considered
for reappointment every two years. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 30.0006.
B. Evaluation Process for Municipal Court Judges
13. The Judicial Nominating Commission (hereafter referred to as "JNC" or
"Commission") was created pursuant to Section 13-5.1 of the Dallas City Code, which provides
that 15 members will be appointed by the city council, with each city council member appointing
one member of the Commission. In addition, the Dallas city attorney is an ex-officio voting
4
member of the JNC and the mayor shaH appoint the chair of the Commission and the full city
council shall appoint the vice-chair.
11. Section 13-5.2 of the Dallas City Code governs the duties and responsibilities of
the JNC, which is an advisory body to the city council, and provides that the JNC shall
recommend nominees to serve as full-time and associate governmental judges; and make report
and recommendations to the city council ad hoc legislative committee on the status of the
selection process for municipal judges.
12. On May 21,2012, the JNC interviewed candidates for the 18 positions of full-
time and 27 positions of associate municipal judge for the City of Dallas. Pursuant to the
requirements of the Dallas City Code Section 13-5.2 (d) and (e), from the interviews and
deliberations, the JNC submitted two lists to the Dallas City Council: one list contained the
candidates for full-time municipal judge and one list for candidates for associate municipal judge
with 18 nominees for the vacancies of full-time judge, and 27 nominees for the vacancies of
associate judge, with Number I being the highest ranking. Plaintiffs were all included in the 18
full-time nominees submitted to the Dallas City Council Defendants.
13. The ad hoc legislative committee, as well as the Dallas City Council, is required
to follow the law. Dallas City Code, Section 13-5.2(e), governs the selection of Municipal
Judges and states,
"Upon receiving the JNC recommendation of nominees, the city council ad
hoc legislative committee may interview one or more the nominees. If not
satisfied with any number of the nominees, the ad hoc legislative committee
may request that the commission recommend a specified number of
additional nominees to the committee. After deliberation, the ad hoc
5
legislative committee shan forward to the fun city council a number of
nominees equal to 150 percent of the number of vacancies in the office of fun-
time or associate municipal judge, rounded up to whole numbers. The
nominees must be divided into two groups, one for full-time judges and one
for associate judges, with the members of each group being ranked in order
or preference by the ad hoc legislative committee, with Number 1 being the
highest ranking. Rankings of the nominees by the judicial nominating
commission must also be forwarded to the fun city council.
14. Section 13-S.2 (f) of the Dallas City Code further requires:
"Upon receiving the ad hoc legislative committee's recommendations of
nominees, the city council shall select one nominee to fill each vacancy.
Before making a selection, the city council may interview one or more of the
nominees. If not satisfied with any number of the nominees, the city council
may, in its discretion, fill whatever vacancies it desires and request that the
judicial nominating commission recommend to the ad hoc legislative
committee a specified number of additional nominees for the unfulfilled
vacancies."
IS. Rather than follow the Dallas City Code, the ad hoc legislative committee
failed to request further nominees from the ad hoc legislative committee as required by
law. If the ad hoc legislative committee was not satisfied with the nominees submitted by
the INC, Dallas City Code Section 13-S.2(e) required the ad hoc legislative committee to
request that the Commission recommend a specified number of additional nominees to
the Committee. Instead, Defendants decided to continue what appears to be a pattern of
overstepping its authority and ignoring the very ordinances designed to protect separation
of powers provided by the Texas Constitution. In fact, Defendants contacted individuals
who were not on the list of 18 candidates. The ad hoc legislative committee flagrantly
disregarded the mandates of the City Code and by-passed the INC, whose very purpose is
to protect from this type of random and inexplicable conduct.
6
16. Upon receiving the two lists, one for full-time municipal judge and one for
associate municipal judge, the ad hoc legislative committee then interviewed not only the 18
candidates as provided by law, but they also ignored the provisions of the Dallas City Code and
interviewed an additional four (4) candidates with no explanation or justification. This act was
in direct violation of Dallas City Code 13-5.2 (e), which requires that the ad hoc legislative
committee request additional nominees from the JNC if they are not satisfied with the nominees
presented. Instead the ad hoc legislative committee made the unprecedented and illegal decision
to recommend additional candidates of their own choosing. In the past, the ad hoc legislative
committee has always followed the recommendations of the JNC and has always chosen Judges
from the list of 18 nominees provided. Not only was the action illegal, but it raises concern for
the veracity and transparency of the process by completely ignoring the process to invoke the
review by the JNC for additional review of candidates and recommendations.
C. Violation of Separation of Powers
17. Article 2 of the Texas Constitution provides for the powers of government stating
that the government is to be divided into three distinct departments: the legislature, the executive
and the judicial, and furthennore, "no person, or collection of persons, being of one of these
three departments, shall exercise any powers properly attached to either of the others".
18. On or about June 15,2012 and August 1,2012, the City Manager's office
presented an overview of the Dallas Municipal Court System to the ad hoc legislative committee
for judicial appointments per the committee's request. Assistant City Manager A.C. Gonzalez
presented his power point presentation, which focused primarily on the lack of revenue raised in
the municipal courts and implied the ruling of the Municipal Judges negatively impacted the
7
city's revenue. Mr. Gonzalez further suggested that changes should be made to the judiciary.
Thereafter, and throughout the process of the appointment of City of Dallas Municipal Judges
the subject of this lawsuit, it became apparent both by actions and words that the City Council, in
particular the ad hoc legislative committee, were going to attempt to assert requirements on the
judges regarding the raising of revenue for the City of Dallas. This again represents illegal
action by the Defendants by requiring, or purporting to require, that the judges commit to
assessing maximum fines or maximum deferred fees an all traffic cases, regardless of the merits
or facts of the case, as a condition to their appointment.
19. In fact, within days of the presentation, Councilwoman Angela Hunt was quoted
in the Dallas Morning News, stating "'we want judges to promulgate some rules that embody
the recommendations ffrom the City Manager's officeJ ... that's key. Ifwe need to shake up
our courts and thejudges that we have sitting right now, we're going to do it' regarding
guiding principles to judges on how they should mete out justice".
20. Section 720.002(a)(2) of the Texas Transportation Code prohibits establishing or
maintaining, formally or informally, a plan to evaluate, promote, compensate, or discipline a
municipal court judge according to the amount of money the judge collected from persons
convicted of a traffic offense. Clearly, the actions and statements of the City Council members,
particularly the ad hoc legislative committee, suggest that the evaluations of the judges in the
appointment process were substantially based on the amount of revenue generated by the judges.
21. Section 720.002 (b)(2) of the Texas Transportation Code prohibits requiring or
suggesting to a municipal court judge that the judge is required or expected to collect a
predetermined amount of money from persons convicted of traffic offenses within a specified
8
period. The City Manager's presentation influenced the nomination and review of the Dallas
municipal judges and their selection by the ad hoc legislative committee.
22. Further, as a direct result of the Assistant City Manager's presentation,
Councilmembers Hunt and Jasso, as co-chairpersons of the ad hoc legislative committee then
sent to each judge a list of thirteen recommendations asking each candidate for their responses.
The recommendations were copied and pasted into an email directly from the recommendations
of the Assistant City Manager. The recommendations were, inter alia, as follows: (a) establish
a tiered fine structure that incentivizes defendants to respond within the first 21 days; (b) require
that a cash or surety bond be posted to secure appearances in trial for all defendants who do not
respond wi thin 21 days or who fail to appear for a trial setting; (c) deferred disposition fees
should be same amount as the window fine plus court costs; (d) consider having our web site be
the place where a defendant can get the best possible deal on a deferred disposition; (e) if they
pay within 21 days; limit motions for continuance to one per side; (f) and disallow off-docket
motions for trial settings for defendants who do not respond within 21 days or who fail to appear
for a trial setting (attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit 1).
23. As required for further consideration for appointment, each full-time Judge
responded to the thirteen recommendations by the City Council with the applicable law. It was
the duty of a Judge to follow the law, for which each has taken an oath. More importantly, the
judges were being asked to commit to results and to predispose of cases, as well as to publicly
comment about a pending or impending proceeding which may come before the judge's court.
Judges are held to strict standards and are governed by the Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon
3B(10) of the Code ofludicial Conduct prohibits a judge from publicly commenting about a
pending or impending proceeding which may come before the judge's court in a manner which
9
suggests to a reasonable person the judge's probably decision on any particular case. In
Jefferson v. State, 803 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Tex. App. - Dallas, 1991, pet. Refd) the court held
that, "in this case [the judge] emphasized the fact that appellant knew the court had promised
him a certain sentence and that appellant received what was promised ... " "It is axiomatic that it
is a denial of due process for the court to arbitrarily refuse to consider the entire range of
punishment for an offense or to refuse to consider the evidence and impose a predetermined
punishment." Jefferson at 471.1. During the City Council meeting, Councilwoman Angela Hunt
stated that they based their decision on judges who responded to the City Manager's
recommendations in a team approach to improve the courts, basically agreeing to the
recommendations. The City Council Defendants then voted to appoint the applicants who agreed
to commit to results and to predispose of cases and would agree to follow the City Manager's
(executive branch) recommendations.
D. Violation of Due Process
24. The City Council Defendants had the legal obligation under their own rules of
procedure to vote on each individual nominee presented as a candidate for municipal judge. The
City Council Defendants violated their own procedural rules by voting on a "slate" of proposed
municipal judges when the appointment of municipal judges was not on the consent agenda but
instead one of the items for individual consideration. During this process, one city council
defendant asked to vote on the judicial candidates individually and was overruled by her
colleagues, once again evidencing the City Council Defendants' rush to violate their own
policies, procedures, rules, ordinances and laws.
10
VI. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
25. The allegations of paragraphs 1- 24 above are incorporated herein by reference as if set
forth fully below.
26. A real and substantial justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiffs and City Council
Defendants regarding the ordinance governing the appointment of judges, violations of the Texas
Transportation Code, the Texas Constitution because the City Council Defendants will
imminently publish the results of their illegal actions taken on August 22, 2012.
27. Pursuant to the provisions of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section
37.001 et seq., and the Texas Constitution, Plaintiffs seeks a judgment of this Court declaring
that the City Council Defendants violated the Texas Transportation Code Section 720.002 (a)
(2) and (b)(2), as well as Dallas City Code Section 13-5.2(e) because the City Council
Defendants evaluated the Plaintiffs based on recommendations related to raising revenue and by
asking the Plaintiffs' to commit to the recommendations thus asking the Judges to violate the
Code of Judicial Conduct. The City Council Defendants also failed to follow its own law, the
Dallas City Code in that they did not follow the mandated procedure for appointment of
municipal judges.
28. Threat of Probable, Imminent and Irreparable Injury.
The Judges will suffer a probable, imminent and irreparable injury if, as they reasonably
anticipate, the Defendants publish the results ofthe vote taken by the City Council on August 22,
2012. Based upon information and belief, the publication of the results of the illegal vote will
occur on August 25, 2012.
29. No Adequate Remedy at Law
The Judges have no adequate remedy at law for the ongoing and potential injuries caused by the
11
imminent publication of the results of the illegal vote taken by the Defendants. No amount of
money damages could compensate them. This protected interest is unique and irreparable. For
the potential harm and damage that would be inflicted on the Judges but for the intervention of
this Court, the Judges have no adequate remedy at law. Further, an applicant seeking to enjoin
the violation of a city ordinance is not required to prove it has no adequate remedy at law. See
Schleuter v. City of Fort Worth, 947 S.W.2d 920, 932 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth 1997, pet.
Denied); San Miguel v. City of Wind crest, 40 S.W. 3d 104, 108 (Tex. App.- San Antonio 2000,
no pet.
30. Plaintiffs are ready and willing to post a reasonable bond in an amount deemed
appropriate by the Court. However, Plaintiffs contend that no bond is necessary in this case to
protect Defendants.
31.Cause of Action Against Defendants.
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief from this Court pursuant to equitable principles, Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure 680 and 681, and Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 65.011,
which provides in part:
A writ of injunction may be granted if:
(1) the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded and all or part of the relief
Requires the restraint of some act prejudicial to the applicant;
(2) a party performs or is about to perform or is procuring or allowing the
performance of an act relating to the subject pending litigation, in
violation of the rights of the applicant, and the act would tend to render
the judgment in that litigation ineffectual;
(3) the applicant is entitled to a writ of injunction under the principles of equity
and the statutes of this state relating to injunctions;
(emphasis added.)
32. The Judges are also entitled to a permanent injunction pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and
12
Remedies Code Section 65.011 because:
(a) the Judges are entitled to the relief above demanded and such relief requires the restraint
of Defendant from acts that will be prejudicial to the Judges;
(b) Defendants may act in violation of the Dallas City Code regarding the appointment of
Municipal Judges;
( c) the Judges are entitled to a writ of injunction under the principles of equity; and
(d) irreparable injury to the Judges is threatened, irrespective of any remedy at law.
33. The Judges also request that a permanent injunction be issued upon final trial.
34. The temporary and permanent injunction should provide as follows:
Defendants, their agents, employees, and representatives, and all persons
in active concert or participation with them, shall not, either directly or indirectly
on behalf of anyone take any action to publish the results of the vote taken by
City Council regarding the reappointment of full time and associate municipal judges.
VIII. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE.
35. Pursuant to Rule 194.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs request that
Defendants disclose the information identified in Rule 194.2( a)-(i). Plaintiffs request that
Defendants disclose such information within seven (7) days of being served with this Petition
and Request.
IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs Timoteo F. Gonzalez, David C.
Indorf, Ruth C. Logan, and Cheryl D. Williams, respectfully request that, upon final trial in this
matter, the Court award the following:
(i) a temporary injunction, as set forth above;
13
(ii) a permanent injunction as set forth above;
(iii) a declaring that the actions committee were
by not following the Dallas in selecting and
Municipal Judges to serve
(iv) such and further relief, at law or in the Judges may be justly
Dallas,
Tel.
Fax. 214-748-7965
SBN: 1
14
VERIFICATION
ST ATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
On this day, David C. Indorf personally appeared before me, the undersigned Notary Public, and
after being duly sworn stated under oath that he/she/they are the Plaintiffs in this action; that he
has read the above motion; and that every statement contained in the motion is within his
personal knowledge and is true and correct.

SWORN TO gus
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
On this day, Cheryl D. Williams personally appeared before me, the undersigned Notary Public,
and after being duly sworn stated under oath that he/she/they are the Plaintiffs in this action; that
she has read the above motion; and that every statement contained in the motion is within her
personal knowledge and is true and correct.
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED b
15
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
On this day, Ruth C. Logan personally appeared before me, the undersigned Notary Public, and
after being duly sworn stated under oath that he/she/they are the Plaintiffs in this action; that she
has read the above motion; and that every statement contained in the motion is within her
personal knowledge and is true and correct.

STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
On this day, Timoteo F. Gonzalez personally appeared before me, the undersigned Notary
Public, and after being duly sworn stated under oath that he/she/they are the Plaintiffs in this
action; that he has read the above motion; and that every statement contained in the motion is
within his personal knowledge and is true and correct.
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED b
16
EXHIBIT1
OF
DATE: ____________________________________ ___
e Legislative (Ad Hoc) Committee for Judicial Appointments Committee would like your
thoughts on the following recommendations to improve our Municipal Court System. Please
email your responses by 4:00 p.m. Tuesday, August
201
5.
Gather more detailed information from
d nts when granti payment
er penalties
idelines 8 to
of fine amount when calculating ti
rved credit. It after determination by
judge that the defendant is too poor
pay, consider community service and
optio . or jail, if the
ndant is not too poor to pay,
to pay and space is available
ail.
to all trial case setti require
ndant a pretrial
renee with the prosecutor.
ition and/or reduced fines might
offered in this meeting. AI!
dants will be apprised of their
an attorney and their right to a
I duri their Pre I
RESPONSE
1
it Motions for Continuance
Ilow off-docket motions for
ngs for defenda nts who not
pond within 21 days or who il to
r ratrial
. Require that a cash or surety bond be
posted secure appearance in trial rail
d ndants who do n res nd within 21
d or who il a r r a I
over the internet,
ition fees, paramete
community service,
ave the Municipal Court Administration,
rTs Office, and Jud ry present
joint report the Ad Hoc Council
mmittee annually regarding efforts to
chieve community Is that are
pacted by City ordinances. For
mple: (1) u on dismissal . (2)
I Rules; and (3) a
of
rred disposition
me amount as the window fine plus
der having ou r web site
re a d nt ca n the
rred disposition, if they
2
you in favor of a paperless system in
unicipal cou

3

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close