Case 2:13-cv-00732-MHT-TFM Document 54-2 Filed 08/26/14 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No: 2:13-cv-732-MHT ) ) ) CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al., ) Defendants. ) ) _____________________________________ ) ) MARKIS ANTWUAN WATTS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No: 2:13-cv-733-MHT ) CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al. ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) HARRIET DELORES CLEVELAND, [PROPOSED] SETTLEMENT ORDER The Court having considered the Joint Motion for Entry of Agreed Settlement Order, ORDERS as follows: 1. The Joint Motion for Entry of an Agreed Settlement Order is GRANTED. 2. The Court hereby DECLARES that, under the current status of the law, the constitutional principles set out in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) regarding incarceration for non-payment; Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507 (2011), regarding notice; and Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507 (2011), Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (1961), Scott v. 1 Case 2:13-cv-00732-MHT-TFM Document 54-2 Filed 08/26/14 Page 2 of 2 Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), and United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993), regarding representation by counsel apply in Municipal Court proceedings, and, to the extent applicable in a particular case, the Judges of the Montgomery Municipal Court are legally required to follow them. 3. The Court hereby DECLARES that the procedures attached as Exhibit A to the Joint Motion for Entry of an Agreed Settlement Order facially comply with the constitutional principles set out in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) regarding incarceration for nonpayment; Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507 (2011), regarding notice; and Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507 (2011), Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (1961), Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), and United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993), regarding representation by counsel. 4. The Court hereby DECLARES that the procedures attached as Exhibit A to the Joint Motion for Entry of an Agreed Settlement Order facially comply with the requirements of the Fourteenth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, sections 1, 6, and 22 of the Alabama Constitution, and Rule 26.11 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. 5. The Court hereby DECLARES that if municipal court defendants are treated in accordance with the new procedures attached as Exhibit A to the Joint Motion for Entry of an Agreed Settlement Order, they would not suffer the alleged legal violations in the first amended complaints of Plaintiffs Harriet Cleveland and Markis Watts. 6. The Court hereby DISMISSES these cases with prejudice. Done this ___ day of _______, 2014 _______________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2