Using the provided source, generate a concise summary:

SECTION Case 3 Document 100 Page 1 of 33 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA TAYARI ROSS and KAIASHA WHITE, ) on behalf of themselves and all others ) similarly situated, ) ) SECTION PlaintiffSECTION s, ) ) v. ) ) CLEVE DUNN, Sr. and ) REHABILITATION HOME ) INCARCERATION, ) ) SECTION DefendantSECTION s. ) ___________________________________ ) Case No. 3 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION JURY DEMAND I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. For years, SECTION DefendantSECTION Rehabilitation Home Incarceration (“RHI”), a private organization purporting to provide pretrial supervision services, profited off individuals in East Baton Rouge Parish by requiring them to pay hundreds of dollars to RHI to be released from jail— effectively holding them for ransom. This fee was the creation of RHI alone—it was not ordered by any court. Those who could not afford the fee languished in jail for days, weeks, or even months as they and their loved ones scrambled to pay off RHI. 2. This scheme was arranged by Cleve Dunn, Sr. (“Dunn”), RHI’s Chief Executive Officer, who directed RHI employees to withhold paperwork authorizing the release of individuals ordered to RHI supervision from the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison (the “Prison”) until they paid the initial fee. 3. The practice occurred with the knowledge of Trudy White, a criminal court judge of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court of Louisiana (the “JDC”), who set bond for arrestees and indiscriminately ordered them to undergo supervision by RHI—often for indefinite periods of time 1 Case 3 Document 100 Page 2 of 33 before their cases went to trial and without assessing their inability to pay any RHI-related fees, including the initial fee that RHI required of supervisees to be released regardless of whether supervisees satisfied all other conditions for initial release. 4. After arrestees paid RHI’s initial fee and were released by the Prison, RHI continued to exact money from them, charging a $225 monthly fee and additional fees for requirements such as classes and ankle monitoring. RHI and Dunn wrongfully used the threat of arrest by East Baton Parish Rouge law enforcement or RHI officials, as well as the threat of bond revocation by the JDC and additional jailing at the Prison, to coerce payment. 5. SECTION PlaintiffSECTION s Tayari Ross and Kaiasha White bring this class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Louisiana and federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Acts (RICO), and other state causes of action against SECTION DefendantSECTION s Dunn and RHI. SECTION DefendantSECTION Dunn regularly committed predicate acts under RICO—extorting money from SECTION PlaintiffSECTION s and the proposed Class—by wrongfully detaining them in jail until they paid RHI’s initial fee, then threatening them with additional jailing if they failed to satisfy RHI’s continuing demands for money once released. SECTION PlaintiffSECTION s seek actual and treble damages to compensate them and the proposed Class for the injuries they have sustained because of SECTION DefendantSECTION Dunn’s extortionate activities. 6. SECTION PlaintiffSECTION White and the proposed Class also seek damages from RHI for its policy and practice of detaining SECTION PlaintiffSECTION White and proposed Class members in the Prison until they paid RHI’s initial fee, and in the alternative, for its conspiracy with Judge White to do the same, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of due process and equal protection. SECTION PlaintiffSECTION White and the proposed Class also seek damages from RHI for this detention policy and practice in violation of their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures. 2 Case 3 Document 100 Page 3 of 33 7. SECTION PlaintiffSECTION White individually seeks damages from RHI under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act for RHI’s harmful and oppressive commercial practices, and, on behalf of herself and the proposed Class, seeks dama

Summary: 


This 2017 class lawsuit was brought by two residents of East Baton Rouge Parish in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs alleged that, in charging fees in addition to bail to be released from prison before trial, the defendant RHI had violated federal and state anti-racketeering law, their Due Process and Equal Protection rights, and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The parties reached a private settlement, and the case was dismissed on February 20, 2020.

