Case 2:16-cv-00053-DB Document 2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 19

Michael P. Studebaker #10027 of
STUDEBAKER LEGAL SERVICES P.C.
Attorney for Plaintiff
2550 Washington Blvd., Suite 329"
Ogden, UT 84401
Telephone: 801-627-9100
Fax: 801-708-0827
Email: mike@studebakerlaw.com
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION
____________________________________________________________________________
WILLIAM COX, EDWARD PAULUS,
:
COMPLAINT
JOHN DOES 1-20, & JANE DOES 1-20,
Plaintiffs
:
Case No. 2:16-cv-53
:

Judge: Benson

:

CLASS CERTIFICATION REQUESTED

Vs.
STATE OF UTAH, WASHINGTON
COUNTY, ALAN GARDNER, in his
:
official capacity, DICK SCHONTER, in his
official capacity, VICTOR IVERSON, in his :
official capacity, ZACHARY RENSTROM,
in his official capacity, GARY HERBERT, :
in his official capacity, GREG HUGHES, in
his official capacity, WAYNE
:
NIEDERHAUSER in his official capacity,
& DOES 1-20,
:
Defendants
:
______________________________________________________________________________
COMES NOW, Plaintiffs in the above matter, by and through their attorney of record,
Michael P. Studebaker, and hereby complains against the Defendants as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and Article 1 Sections 7 & 12 of the Utah Constitution, Plaintiffs bring this class action
lawsuit to ask this Court for injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent further violations and to

1

 Case 2:16-cv-00053-DB Document 2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 19

protect the constitutional rights of all indigent persons charged with crimes in the Washington
County District Court.
2. Plaintiffs bring this Civil Rights Action to remedy the above-named Defendants’ failure to
provide constitutionally adequate legal representation to indigent adults with criminal cases pending
in the District Court in Washington County, Utah. This failure deprives, or threatens to deprive,
Plaintiffs of rights guaranteed to them by the Amendments requires states to provide counsel, free
of cost the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 1,
Sections 7 and 12 of the Utah State Constitution.
3. The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution guarantees the right of the accused “to have
the assistance of counsel for his defense.” In 1963, the United States Supreme Court held in Gideon
v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments requires states to
provide counsel, free of cost, to indigent persons charged with felony wrongdoing by the state. The
right to counsel requires effective assistance of competent counsel. McCann v. Richardson, 397 U.S.
759, 771 (1970).
4. Utah has delegated the responsibility for the provision of indigent defense serves to its counties.
Pursuant to state law, the counties design and administer their own indigent defense programs. Utah
Code S 77-32-301.
5. Utah is one of the only two states in the country that provide no state funding for indigent
defense. Utah ranks 48th out of 50 states in its per capita funding of indigent defense.
6. Defendants have failed to set such standards for the provisions of indigent defenders, or to
exercise any supervision to ensure that county indigent defense prograns provides constitutionally
adequate legal representation. The Defendants do not require that the public defenders are hired on
2

 Case 2:16-cv-00053-DB Document 2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 3 of 19

merit, train them in criminal defense, issue written practice standards, or monitor or limit excessive
workloads.
7. The Defendants underfund it’s indigent defense services to the point where the lack of financial
resources impedes the delivery of representation. The Defendants design the indigent defense to
minimize potential financial liability rather than to ensure adequate defense representation. To keep
costs low, the Defendants refuse to budget for necessary attorney staff, they refuse to compensate
indigent counsel adequately, and they refuse to provide adequate funds for necessary support services
such as investigators, expert witnesses, paralegal, and secretarial assistance.
8. In fiscal year 2016, Defendant Washington County budgeted $760,688 for indigent defense in
Washington County.
9. In fiscal year, 2016, Defendant State of Utah has budged $0 for indigent defense in the State of
Utah.
10. In fiscal year 2016 Defendant Washington County budgeted $2,816,540 for prosecution.
11. According to SB6, Defendant State of Utah budgeted $18,587,1001
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1343 (3) and 28 U.S.C. S 1331.
13. The facts giving rise to the claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 are the same facts as those giving rise
to the claims under Utah Statutory and common law, and as such, the state law claims are subject
to the pendent jurisdiction of this court.
14. Defendants have known for decades that the failure to set adequate an provide the resources to
1

This amount covers the whole State, not just W ashington County, but is illustrative of the amount and disparity for
indigent defense funding as if any of these cases are brought in W ashington County, they will be assigned to the public
defenders in W ashington County, with no extra funding.

3

 Case 2:16-cv-00053-DB Document 2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 4 of 19

meet them, and the consequent inability to provide constitutionally adequate legal representation,
was improper. This is supported by a recently conducted 6th Amendment study in Utah that outlined
numerous shortcomings over indigent defense throughout the whole State.
15. The Defendants are officially responsible for the formulation and administration of the budgets
for their indigent defense program.
16. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, and Article 1, Sections 7 and 12 of the Utah Constitution, Plaintiffs’ rights were
violated.
PARTIES
17. Plaintiff, William Cox, is and at all times pertinent herein has been a citizen of the United States
and a resident of Washington County, Utah. He has pending criminal case in Weber County District
Court. Mr. Cox is represented by a member of the private bar who has contracted with the
Defendants to provide indigent defense services in Washington County. Mr. Cox has not been
convicted of a crime and is not seeking monetary damages. If convicted, Mr. Cox faces at least five
years in prison.
18. Plaintiff, Edward Paulos, is and at all times pertinent herein has been a citizen of the United
States and a resident of Washington County, Utah. He has pending criminal case in Washington
County District Court. Mr. Paulos is represented by a member of the private bar who has contracted
with the Defendants to provide indigent defense services in Washington County. Mr. Paulos has
not been convicted of a crime and is not seeking monetary damages. If convicted, Mr. Paulos faces
up to life in the Utah State Prison.
19. Plaintiffs John and Jane Does 1-20 are so listed because Plaintiffs do not yet know the identities
4

 Case 2:16-cv-00053-DB Document 2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 5 of 19

by name of all other potential Plaintiffs in this matter. In the course of discovery, the names of these
persons will become known. They will then be added as named Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs reserve the right
at any time before trial to add such defendants by name, as their names become known. The listing
of these unknown individuals by a “Doe” designation hereby preserves any and all rights or claims
that might be made by such individuals, as if they were named personally herein as Plaintiffs.
19. Defendant Alan Gardner, in his official capacity, is a duly elected county commissioner who
makes policy for Washington County, and includes such matters as budgets and implementing of an
indigent defense program.
20. Defendant Dick Schonter, in his official capacity, is a duly elected county commissioner who
makes policy for Washington County, and includes such matters as budgets and implementing of an
indigent defense program.
21. Defendant Victor Iverson, in his official capacity, is a duly elected county commissioner who
makes policy for Washington County, and includes such matters as budgets and implementing of an
indigent defense program.
22. Defendant Gary Herbert, in his official capacity, is the duly elected Governor of the State of
Utah and is the head executive for the State of Utah.
23. Defendant Greg Hughes, in his official capacity, is a duly elected legislature for the State of
Utah, and also is the Speaker of the Utah House of Representatives and has a duty to ensure that the
constitutional rights of the citizens of Utah are protected.
24. Defendant Wayne Niederhauser, in his official capacity, is a duly elected legislature for the State
of Utah, and also is the President of the Utah Senate and has a duty to ensure that the constitutional
rights of the citizens of Utah are protected.
5

 Case 2:16-cv-00053-DB Document 2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 6 of 19

25. All Defendants have failed in their duties just outlined.
26. Defendant Washington County is a municipal government formatted under the laws of the State
of Utah.
27. Defendant State of Utah is the government for the whole State.
28. All “Doe” Defendants are so listed because Plaintiffs do not yet know the identities by name of
all other employees, directors, or agency directors who are liable for constitutional violations. In the
course of discovery, the names of these commanders, troopers and people will become known. They
will then be added as named Defendants. Plaintiffs reserve the right at any time before trial to add
such defendants by name, as their names become known. The listing of these unknown individuals
by a “Doe” designation hereby preserves any and all rights or claims that might be made against such
individuals, as if they were named personally herein as defendants.
RULE 23 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
29. Plaintiffs Cox & Paulus, (collectively, the “Class Plaintiffs”) bring this action pursuant to Civil
Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (collectively, the
“Class Members”) as members of the following proposed plaintiff class (the “Class”):
All indigent persons who have been or will be charged with one or more crimes in
the district court for Washington County, Utah, who have been or will be appointed
a public defender, and who continue to have or will have a public defender appearing
in their cases.
30. The representative Plaintiffs have the resources and interests to adequately protect the Class.
31. The Class is so numerous that the individual joinder of all members is impracticable. It is
believed that the potential Class just in Washington County will exceed 2,000 persons. At any point
in time, scores of indigent persons are charged with one or more crimes in the District Court in

6

 Case 2:16-cv-00053-DB Document 2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 7 of 19

Washington County, Utah, are appointed a public defender, and continue to have a public defender
appearing in their cases.
32. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class. The questions of law and fact
common to all members of the Class include but are not limited to: (a) whether Defendants have a
duty to provide indigent persons charged with crimes with assistance of counsel; and (b) whether
Defendants have breached their duties.
33. The Class Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class.
34. The Class Plaintiffs’ will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. There are no
conflicts of interest between the Class Plaintiffs’ and other Class Members. The Class Plaintiffs will
vigorously prosecute this action on behalf of the Class. The Class Plaintiffs’ are represented by
competent counsel who will vigorously prosecute the case on behalf of the Class.
35. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the entire Class.
FACTS
36. Plaintiffs adopt by reference paragraphs 1-35 herein.
37. Defendants enter into fixed-price contracts with local attorneys to provide indigent defense
services to those charged with criminal wrongdoing in the district court. The contacts are structured
and administered in a manner that impedes the ability of the attorneys to provide constitutionally
adequate legal representation to their clients, including Plaintiff.
38. Because of the deficiencies in the Defendant’s indigent defense program, which include lack of
sufficient funding, sufficient attorney and professional staff, training, workload limits, adequate
contracting standards, adequate attorney qualification standards, and other indigent defense policies
and procedures, the Defendants’ indigent defense program is not providing Plaintiff with the legal
7

 Case 2:16-cv-00053-DB Document 2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 8 of 19

representation to which they are constitutionally entitled.
39. At the time this lawsuit was filed, Plaintiffs were being represented by public defenders.
During that representation, Washington County did not renew the public defender contract for Mr.
Paulus’ public defender which makes it impossible for him to continue to his currently scheduled
trial date.
40. Mr. Paulus faces 25 years to life in the Utah State Prison if he is convicted of his crimes. Mr.
Paulus had a previous public defender, Ed Flint, who had obtained a private investigator interview
a number of witnesses, but Mr. Flint had not retained any expert witnesses because of the contract
issues with the Defendants as it relates to the public defender system in Washington County. As of
the date of the filing of this action, Aric Cramer, who had two contracts and subcontracted with Ed
Flint, did not have these two contacts renewed. Mr. Cramer would also subcontract with Ariel
Taylor. On information and belief, one of those contacts are still unfilled.
41. On information and belief, attorney Ariel Taylor has been awarded one of those two vacant
contacts. However, Mr. Taylor has no knowledge or involvement in the Mr. Paulus’ case prior to
the non-renewal of Mr. Flint and Mr. Cramer’s contracts.
42. On information and belief, Defendants have been forcing/coercing Mr. Taylor to take on new
appointments and work existing cases of both of the non-renewed contracts in the interim.
43. On information and belief, Mr. Taylor is not prepared to go to trial for Mr. Paulus’ case. It is
not reasonable for Mr. Taylor to be prepared to go to trial while he is responsible for 350 (700 if both
contracts) cases, approximately 80% felonies, 20% Class A Misdemeanors.
44. Mr. Cox faces 0 to 5 years prison each count. Currently Mr. Cox is being prosecuted by the
Utah Attorney General’s office, but no funding from the state for the public defense. Defendants use
8

 Case 2:16-cv-00053-DB Document 2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 9 of 19

the same contact and public defenders for his case as non Attorney General prosecutions.
45. Defendants’ procedures for funding indigent defense impedes the provision of adequate legal
representation as it relates to Plaintiffs and Class Members.
46. Defendants exercise no supervision over the county indigent defense programs. They have also
failed to establish, require, or enforce any practice standards or gridlines for the portions of noncapital indigent defendants receive constitutionally adequate representation.
47. National standards pertaining to the administration and provision of indigent defense programs
have been in existence for decades2. State and local entities across the country have adopted many
of these practices standards. Washington County has refused to do so.
I.

Failure to adopt and publicize job descriptions and set job qualifications

48. Defendants hire, award contracts to, or appoint attorneys who have neither the experience,
inclination, nor resources to provide adequate legal representation to indigent clients.
49. National standards for the administration of indigent defense services include policies and
procedures designed to ensure that counsel are competent advocates and familiar with criminal law
and procedures3.

2

See, e.g., American Bar Association (ABA) Standards for Criminal Justice: Prosecution Function and Defense
Function (1993); ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Providing Defense Services (1992); National Legal Aid
and Defender Association (NLADA) Performance Guidelines for Criminal Defense Representation (1995); NLADA
Guidelines for Negotiating and Awarding Governmental Contracts for Criminal Defense Services (1984); NLADA
Standards for the Administration of Assigned Counsel Systems (1989); NLADA Guidelines for Legal Defense Systems
in the United States (1976); President’s National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals,
Report of the Task Force on the Courts (1973).
3

See, e.g., ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Providing Defense Services, Standards 5~2.2, 5 ~ 3.3 (b )( vi); NLAD
A Guidelines for Legal Defense Systems in the United States, Guidelines 2.3, 5.9; NLADA Guidelines for Negotiating
and Awarding Governmental Contracts for Criminal Defense Services, Guideline III~7; NLADA Standards for the
Administration of Assigned Counsel Systems, Standard 4.1.1 (a); National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform
State Laws, Model Public Defender Act §5

9

 Case 2:16-cv-00053-DB Document 2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 10 of 19

50. The Defendants have no adequate written hiring, appointment, or contracting standards for
indigent defense counsel. The Defendants do not hire, appoint, or contract pursuant to objective,
publicized criteria.
51. Lacking identifiable, objective, published hiring and job qualifications, the Defendants hire,
appoint, or contact for attorneys not because they are competent, but instead because they are willing
to work for the contract amount, they will not challenge the county attorney by advocating vigorously
for their clients, or will they not impede the ability for the prosecution to move cases forward
expeditiously. Consequently, many indigent defense counsel lack the qualifications and experience
necessary to provide constitutionally adequate legal representation.
II.

Failure to Establish Practice Standards

52. The national standards and professional rules of responsibility define adequate assistance of
counsel as requiring, among other things, that defense counsel: (a) have adequate knowledge of the
relevant areas of the law4; (b) act with reasonable diligence and promptness, avoiding unnecessary
delay in the disposition of cases5; (c) provide representation at every critical stage to their clients’
proceedings6; (d) conduct reasonable factual and legal pre-trial investigations in to the charges
against their clients, pursue available formal and informal discovery procedures, and use appropriate

4

See, e.g., ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Providing Defense Services, Standards 5-1, 5-2.2; NLADAPerformance
Guidelines for Criminal Defense Representation, Guideline 1.2; Utah Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.1.
5

See, e.g., ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Prosecution and Defense Function, Standards 5-1.3, 4-3.6.
6

See, e.g., NLADA Performance Guidelines for Criminal Defense Representation, Guideline 1.1.

10

 Case 2:16-cv-00053-DB Document 2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 11 of 19

and necessary experts7; and (e) consult with their clients to elicit relevant information about the case,
to inform clients of their rights, and to enable clients to make informed decisions about the direction
of their cases8.
53. These standards are not met in Washington County.
III.

Failure to Train

54. Defendants do not train new indigent defense counsel who start with little or no prior criminal
experience.
55. Current indigent defense counsel receive neither the adequate time nor the adequate resources
to continue legal education. This is in stark contrast to what state’s attorneys receive.
56. National standards require training, professional development, and continuing legal education.
Indigent defense counsel must acquire and maintain lawyering skills as well as keep current with
new developments in the complex and rapidly changing field of criminal law.
57. Lacking formal orientation, newly hired attorneys have no opportunity to acquire and maintain
the skills and legal knowledge necessary to put the prosecution’s case to the crucible of adversarial
testing.
58. Lacking ongoing training by the Defendants, indigent defense counsel have no formal
opportunity to hone their skills and remain knowledgeable of significant changes in the law without
personally funding the travel and registration expenses required to participate in continuing

7

See, e.g., ABA Standards for Criminal justice, Prosecution and Defense Function, Standards 4-4.1,4-4.4,4-4.6.1;
NLADA Performance Guidelines for Criminal Defense Representation, Guideline 4.1,4.2,4.3.
8

See, e.g., ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Prosecution Function and Defense Function, Standards 4-3.1 (a), 4-3.2,
4-3.8, 4-5.1, 4-5.2(b); NLADA Performance Guidelines for Criminal Defense Representation, Guidelines 1.3(c),
2.2, 7.5; Utah Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.4.

11

 Case 2:16-cv-00053-DB Document 2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 12 of 19

education and training programs outside the State.
59. These shortcomings have adversely affected Plaintiffs because they are not given adequate legal
representation by their public defender.
IV.

Failure to Monitor Excessive Workloads

60. Defendants have not implemented effective mechanisms for monitoring the performance of
public defenders.
61. Defendants have not adopted meaningful publicized criteria for evaluating public defenders.
62. Defendants do not engage in systematic monitoring and evaluation of the performance of public
defenders based on published criteria.
63. Defendants do not obtain the meaningful information essential to fulfilling their constitutional
duties of providing indigent defense services.
64. Defendants have not established any system for ensuring that the public defenders investigate
cases, prepare for trial, and communicate timely and adequately with clients.
65. Defendants do not take reasonable steps to ensure that the private practices of the public
defenders do not impair the public defense system.
66. Defendants have failed to establish an effective system for preventing conflicts of interest.
67. Defendants have failed to adequately respond to complaints about their public defense system.
68. If Defendants adequately monitored the public defenders, they would have found that many of
them regularly fail to return calls from indigent defendants in a timely manner, if at all.
69. If Defendants adequately monitored the public defenders, they would have found that many of
them regularly fail to meet with indigent defendants in advance of court hearings.
70. If Defendants adequately monitored the public defenders, they would have found that many of
12

 Case 2:16-cv-00053-DB Document 2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 13 of 19

them regularly fail to devote sufficient time to interviewing and counseling indigent defendants.
71. If Defendants adequately monitored the public defenders, they would have found that many of
the public defenders rarely, if ever, investigate the charges made against indigent defendants.
72. If Defendants adequately monitored the public defenders, they would have found that many of
the public defenders regularly fail to pursue or review discovery from prosecution in public defense
cases.
73. If Defendants adequately monitored the public defenders, Defendants would have found that
many of the public defenders regularly fail to make sufficient preparations for court hearings
involving indigent defendants.
74. If Defendants adequately monitored the public defenders, Defendants would have found that
many of the public defenders regularly fail to stand with indigent defendants during court hearings.
75. If Defendants adequately monitored the public defenders, Defendants would have found that
many of the public defenders rarely, if ever, take cases to trial on behalf of indigent defendants.
76. If Defendants adequately monitored the public defenders, Defendants would have found that
many of the public defenders devote a substantial portion (if not a majority) of their time to working
on private cases, whether civil or criminal.
77. If Defendants adequately monitored the public defenders, Defendants would have found that the
private work performed by many of the public defenders is performed to the detriment of public
defense services.
78. Defendants’ underfunding of indigent defense services results in unmanageably large workloads
for individual indigent defense counsel. Workload affects the productivity and effectiveness of
indigent defense counsel more directly than any other variable. This is especially true in Washington
13

 Case 2:16-cv-00053-DB Document 2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 14 of 19

County where the Defendants do not offer full-time indigent defense services.
79. National standards explicitly provide for the development of workload standards. Indigent
defense counsel should not carry a workload which “interferes with the rendering of quality
representation, endangers the client’s interest in the speedy disposition of charges, or may lead to the
breach of professional obligations9
80. The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals states that a single
full-time indigent defense counsel can reasonable be expected to handle no more than (a) 150
felonies per year; or (b)400 misdemeanors per year; or (c) 200 juvenile delinquency cases per year10.
81. Workload limits may be lower for attorneys, like those in Washington County, who work parttime, have limited support services, must travel frequently or great distances to perform their jobs,
or have other job related supervisory or administrative responsibilities.
82. Defendants are aware of these standards and willfully ignore them.
83. For example, after the recent 6th Amendment study, it was published in various forms of media
that there are serious deficiencies in indigent defense in Utah. Rather than correcting these issues,
Defendant State of Utah has not acted to correct any funding or oversight issues. Rather than
correcting these issues, Defendant Washington County did not reauthorize two different public
defender’ contracts (Aric Cramer and Edward Flint).
9

ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Prosecution Function and Defense Function, Standard 4-1.3. See generally ABA
Standards for Criminal Justice: Providing Defense Services, Standard 5-5.3; NLADA Guideline for Negotiating and
Awarding Government Contracts for Criminal Defense Services, Guideline 1II-12; NLADA Standards for the
Administration of Assigned Counsel Systems, Standard 4.1.2; NLADA Guidelines for Legal Defense Systems in the
United States, Guidelines 5.1, 5.2, 5.3; President's National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and
Goals, Report of the Task Force on the Courts, Standard 13.12.
10

President's National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice and Goals, Report of the Task Force on the Courts,
Standard 13.12.

14

 Case 2:16-cv-00053-DB Document 2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 15 of 19

84. On information and belief, the Defendants’ do not maintain caseload data. The Defendants do
not monitor the workloads of the indigent defense counsel to ensure that they are manageable, and
that the attorneys are devoting sufficient time to their cases.
85. At least two former public defenders in Washington County, Aric Cramer and Edward Flint,
both closed over 350 felonies in FY 2015–including murder and sex crime cases.
86. These shortcomings have adversely affected the Plaintiffs because are not given adequate legal
representation by his public defender.
VI.

Failure to Compensate Attorneys Adequately

87. As Outlined herein, the indigent defense program in Washington County and the State of Utah
is not adequately funded by the Defendants.
88. In the further effort to minimize their financial exposure, Defendants do not fund support
services and resources necessary for competent criminal defense practice. All contract attorneys are
expected to pay for such services out of their contract fee.
89. As a result, many indigent defense counsel go without such services.
90. To obtain funding for expert and investigative services, defense counsel must seek approval
from the District Court and Washington County Attorney’s office.
91. Lacking support services or the funds to provide, take time away from representing indigent
clients to tend to clerical tasks or perform investigations, rely solely on police detective work, or
forego legal research and factual investigations necessary for constitutionally adequate legal
representation.
HARM TO PLAINTIFF: FAILURE TO TAKE BASIC STEPS TO PROVIDE
ADEQUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION
15

 Case 2:16-cv-00053-DB Document 2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 16 of 19

92. Hampered by a lack of experience, excessive workloads, inadequate compensation, the lack of
support services, and the absence of meaningful administrative oversight and technical assistance,
indigent defense counsel do not or are unable to perform even the most basic tasks necessary to
provide adequate representation to their clients under the current funding and supervision system.
They do not or are unable to act as an effective adversarial check upon the prosecution function
based on these shortcomings.
93. Regularly defense counsel do not, or are unable to, meet and confer with their clients in a
meaningful manner prior to critical stages in their clients’ criminal proceedings. While they do have
some contact, based on the current funding system, as a whole they do not or are unable to visit
clients in jail and are unavailable by phone in a meaningful manner. Because of the current indigents
defense system, they limit their client contact to a few minutes in the courthouse immediately prior
to a court appearance. This is what happened to Plaintiffs.
94. Many indigent defense attorneys do not or are unable to adequately investigate the charges
against their clients. Most rely upon the information in the County Attorney’s files to make
assessment of their clients’ cases. They do not, or are unable to, meet with or subpoena witnesses,
visit the scene of the crime, or examine evidence. This is what happened to Plaintiffs.
95. Those indigent defense counsel who do take cases to trial do not or are unable to adequately
prepare. They rarely use the expert witnesses. Nor do they request, and in most cases, cannot obtain,
independent verification of testing and forensic work conducted by the state crime laboratory. This
is what happens to Plaintiffs.
96. Innocent clients and clients with meritorious defenses are compelled to plead guilty. They waive
their rights to trial and other due process protection under duress, without the sufficient
16

 Case 2:16-cv-00053-DB Document 2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 17 of 19

understanding of the protections they are waiving. This is what happened to Plaintiffs.
COUNT I
United States Constitution Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and 42 U.S.C. S 1983
97. Plaintiff adopts by reference paragraphs 1-96 herein.
98. Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiff with adequate legal representation violates Plaintiffs’
rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, including, but
not limited to, his right to effective assistance of counsel.
COUNT II
Utah Constitution Article 1, Sections 7 and 12
99. Plaintiff adopts by reference paragraphs 1-98 herein.
100. Defendant's failure to provide Plaintiff with adequate legal representation violates
Plaintiffs rights under Article 1, Sections 7 and 12 of the Utah Constitution.
CONCLUSION
101. Plaintiffs adopt by reference paragraphs 1-100 herein.
102. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, including the policies, practices, and procedures
for public defense that Defendants have maintained and continued, indigent persons charged with
crimes in the Washington County District Court have suffered or are at immanent and serious risk
of suffering harm. Among other things, these indigent persons must make decisions about their
rights or contest issues without adequate factual or legal investigation by their attorneys. These
indigent persons are waived without proper consultation and advice. These persons are deprived of
the services of investigators and expert witnesses. The cases of these indigent persons are not
properly prepared for trial. These indigent persons do not receive meaningful benefits in exchange
17

 Case 2:16-cv-00053-DB Document 2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 18 of 19

for guilty pleas.
103. There is a substantial risk that Defendants’ violations will continue and will deprive the Class
Plaintiffs and other Class members of their rights. Among other things.
104. Defendants have persisted in a wrongful course of conduct for many years.
105. Defendants have persisted in a wrongful course of conduct even though Defendants knew or
should have known that indigent persons were being deprived of their rights.
106. Defendants have failed to take prompt action to fix their public defense system.
107. Defendants have allowed their public defense system to descend into chaos.
108. These constitutional shortcomings are ongoing and are clearly capable of repetition yet evading
review.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs’ prays for relief as follows:
A.

For Certification of a class as defined above;

B.

For a declaration that Defendants are depriving Class Members of their rights to the
assistance of counsel pursuant to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution;

C.

The issuance of preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining Defendants from
violating the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and
Article 1 Sections 7 and 12 of the Utah Constitution;

D.

The issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendants to
implement a full time indigent defense program on parity with the same programs
which the prosecutors and government attorneys have.

E.

For an award of Plaintiffs’ costs and attorneys’ fees; and
18

 Case 2:16-cv-00053-DB Document 2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 19 of 19

F.

For such and other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DATED this the 22nd day of January, 2016.

/s/ Michael P. Studebaker
Attorney for Plaintiffs

19

 Case 2:16-cv-00053-DB Document 2-1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 1

CIVIL COVER SHEET

JS 44 (Rev. 12112)

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 _.Ia) PLAINTIFF~
Wlnlam
COx, ECfwarcfPaulus,

John

Does

1-20 &

Jane

Does

1-20

Stl?~16f~Pa~Wa~hington
Victor

Iverson,

Wayne
(b)

County

of Residence

of First Listed Plaintiff
Washinq",~to",n-,-(EXCEPT IN Us. PLAINTIFF CASES)

_

Address, and Telephone Number)

2550

Ste

Ogden,

Washington

Blvd.,

County

o

1

2

of Residence

U.S. Government
Plaintiff

J!f

U.S. Government
Defendant

o

3

0
0
0
0

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 Veteran's Benefits
160 Stockholders' Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise

o
o
o
o
o
o

REAL PROPERTY
2 I0 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property

0

Dick
Greg

Schonter,

&

Hughes

capacities

of First Listed Defendant
-'S"'a"l"t""L""a""ko-e"(IN u.s. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLy)

_

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

Attorneys

(If Known)

V. ORIGIN
)!( I Original

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIP AL PARTIES

(Place an "X" in One Box Only)

(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State
0 1

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

4

CONTRACT

0
0

official

Gardner,
Herbert,

329

IV NATURE OF SUIT (Place
0
0
0
0
0

in their

Alan
Gary

UT 84401

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION
o

Renstrom,

Niederhauser

NOTE:

Mi&Waet§1Lnd~b\:terName,

County,

Zachary

Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in item 111)

Citizen of Another State

an "X" in One Box Only)
TORTS

FORFEITURE/PENAL

o

PERSONAL INJURY
PERSONAL INJURY
o 310 Airplane
o 365 Personal Injury Product Liability
o 315 Airplane Product
Liability
o 367 Health Carel
o 320 Assault, Libel &
Pharmaceutical
Slander
Personal Injury
o 330 Federal Employers'
Product Liability
Liability
o 368 Asbestos Personal
0340 Marine
Injury Product
o 345 Marine Product
Liability
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
o 350 Motor Vehicle
o 370 Other Fraud
o 355 Motor Vehicle
o 371 Truth in Lending
Product Liability
o 380 Other Personal
Property Damage
o 360 Other Personal
Injury
0 385 Property Damage
Product Liability
o 362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
PRISONER PETITIONS
'}![ 440 Other Civil Rights
Habeas Corpus:
o 463 Alien Detainee
0441 Voting
o 442 Employment
o 510 Motions to Vacate
o 443 Housingl
Sentence
Accommodations
o 530 General
o 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - o 535 Death Penalty
Employment
Other:
o 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - o 540 Mandamus & Other
Other
o 550 Civil Rights
o 555 Prison Condition
o 448 Education
0 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement

o

(Place an "X" ill One Boxfor Plaintiff
and One Box for Defendant)
PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
o 4 04
of Business In This State

DEF

o

1

o

2

o

2

Incorporated and Principal Place
of Business In Another State

o

5

05

o

3

o

3

Foreign Nation

o

6

06

LABOR
Ll 710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
o 720 LaborlManagement
Relations
o 740 Railway Labor Act
o 751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
Cl 790 Other Labor Litigation
o 791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act

OTHER STATUTES

BANKRUPTCY

TY

625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 881
690 Other

o
o

422 Appeal 28 USC 158
423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157

o
o
o

PROPERTY RIGHTS
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
840 Trademark

o
o
o
o
o

SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395fl)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DlWC/DlWW (405(g))
864 ssro Titlc XVI
865 RSI (405(g))

o
o

FEDERAL TAX SUITS
870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
871 IRS-Third Party
26 USC 7609

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0

False Claims Act
State Reapportionment
Antitrust
Banks and Banking
Commerce
Deportation
Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commoditiesl
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

IMMIGRATION
Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions

o 462 Naturalization
o

(Place an "X't in One Box Onlv)

0 2

Proceeding

Removed from
State Court

o

3

o

Remanded from
Appellate Court

4 Reinstated

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

use

Amendment

cite jurisdictional

6 Multidistrict
Litigation

statutes unless diversity):

violations
ACTION

/s/

Michael

DEMAND

CHECK

$

JURY

DOCKET

SIGNATURE OF ATIORNEY

01/22/2016

from
Another District
(specify)

of cause:

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

1101

o

5 Transferred

1983

Brief description
6th

o

or

Reopened

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do

42

YES only if demanded
DEMAND:

NUMBER

OF RECORD

Studebaker

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #

375
400
410
430
450
460
470

AMOUNT

APPLYING IFP

JUDGE

MAG. JUDGE

0

Yes

in complaint:
)&No