No. 17-2381 ___________________________

Cecelia Roberts Webb; Darron Yates; Robert Eutz; Anthony Lemicy; Krystal Banks; Frank Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellees

v.

City of Maplewood

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: April 12, 2018 Filed: May 4, 2018 ____________ Before COLLOTON, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Cecelia Webb and five other motorists have filed a putative class action against the City of Maplewood, Missouri, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming its policy or custom violates their constitutional rights. They assert the City automatically issues an arrest warrant whenever someone ticketed for violating its traffic and vehicle laws fails to pay a fine or appear in court. Once arrested, the motorist is allegedly presented with a Hobson's choice: Either pay a bond the amount of which was set in advance without any determination of his ability to pay it, or sit in jail possibly for days. The plaintiffs further contend that once a warrant has been issued, a motorist cannot avoid it by voluntarily returning to the municipal court or paying the outstanding fine, but must either submit to a custodial arrest or retain a lawyer to argue a motion before the municipal judge to vacate the warrant. If the court does not grant the motion, the motorist, whose presence in court the judge allegedly demands, will be arrested and jailed. Jail, the plaintiffs assert, is the means by which the City attempts to coerce the motorist into paying the bond to secure his release. The complaint indicates that the City's policy or custom involves additional steps that can ensnare motorists in repeated cycles of arrest, jailing, and pressure to pay a bond irrespective of their ability to do so. The plaintiffs maintain that since their poverty makes it difficult if not impossible to pay the bond, the City thereby violates, among other things, their due-process and equal-protection rights.

The City moved the district court1 to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, including that the City is immune from suit and that the complaint fails to state a claim against the City. The district court dismissed a single count from the complaint on the consent of both parties but otherwise denied the motion, ruling that the City is not immune from suit and that the complaint sufficiently states a claim of municipal liability. The City appeals from the order denying it immunity, and we affirm.

We review a district court's decision about whether a party is immune from suit de novo. See Sample v. City of Woodbury, 836 F.3d 913, 915–16 (8th Cir. 2016); Balogh v. Lombardi, 816 F.3d 536, 544 (8th Cir. 2016). The City argues that it enjoys immunity for two reasons: first, under the Eleventh Amendment since the municipal court, which is an arm of the State of Missouri, is responsible for most of the disputed

1 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-2- practices and is thus the real party in interest here; and second, because the absolute immunity of the responsible officials renders the City immune as well. The City is wrong in both respects.

The Eleventh Amendment protects States and their arms and instrumentalities from suit in federal court, N. In