In the federal case of Welchen v. Harris, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, California’s Attorney General Kamala Harris recently made clear that she is not going to be bullied by the Plaintiffs. Recall that in the last installment of this case, U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley blasted the Plaintiffs’ theory of bail as nothing but “freedom rhetoric” and “one-liner platitudes.”
Recently, the Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs case in its entirety. As forecasted by ABC, the Attorney General pointed out that there were no factual allegations supporting the complaint as to her involvement whatsoever in the California’s bail system, and she also pointed out that a “generic allegation that the Attorney General has a general duty to enforce state law does not overcome Eleventh Amendment immunity.”
As to the merits, General Harris pointed out that California’s system of bail discriminates not on wealth or poverty, but on the severity of the crime at issue. Said the Attorney General: “The bail law and the bail schedule discriminate on the basis of the nature of the crime charged, not on the basis of an arrestee’s financial ability to post bail.”
Sacramento County joined in filing a motion to dismiss. As the County noted in their brief, while the Plaintiffs are alleging that the County employs “wealth-based detention policies and practices,” the Plaintiffs’ “complaint does not identify any specific county policies.” The County also agreed with the grounds for dismissal asserted by Attorney General Harris.
Motions hearings are currently set for March 24 and April 7. It does not appear at this time the Plaintiffs are going to be able to prevail on the complaint as they have filed it, and other than dismissal, it looks like their only option will be to attempt to cobble together a theory that does sound in law like they are attempting to do in San Francisco.
Image courtesy of www.familydocs.org
コメント