Contempt Charges Against Warden Withdrawn After Our Firm Files Motion to Dismiss

Our firm recently had another big victory in federal court after we were retained to represent the warden of a federal detention facility against criminal contempt charges. After we were retained to represent the warden, we filed an aggressive motion to dismiss, and the contempt charges were ultimately withdrawn.

The warden was accused of violating a court order requiring that pretrial detainees be given access to the jail’s law library.

The case started when a pretrial detainee at the warden’s facility accused the warden and other officials of violating a court order requiring that the detainee be allowed to use the facility’s law library for a certain number of hours every week. The detainee, through his lawyer, filed a motion to hold the warden in contempt based on that alleged violation. The warden denied these allegations.

Before we were brought in to represent the warden, the judge in the detainee’s criminal case ordered that the warden come to court to respond to the contempt allegations, and the warden initially appeared without a lawyer. 

After hearing from the detainee’s defense lawyer, the court stated that the warden would need an attorney to defend against potential criminal contempt charges, which can carry jail time and substantial fines. The court noted the irony of considering whether to sentence the warden to jail time in his own detention facility. 

Fortunately, our firm was hired to represent the warden, and he never had to worry about that outcome once we entered the case. After the court set a final hearing on the contempt charges, we filed an aggressive motion to dismiss the charges, arguing that the court had improperly initiated contempt proceedings against the warden and that there was no prima facie showing that the warden had violated any court orders. 

After we filed our motion, the detainee ultimately withdrew his contempt charges in full before the hearing. The judge granted the withdrawal and ended the contempt proceedings without any finding of contempt, no fines, no jail time, and no court order against the warden or his facility.

What are contempt charges in federal court?

“Contempt” is when a party or non-party in litigation disobeys a court order, disrespects the court’s authority, or otherwise interferes with the judicial process. Historically, courts have been able to initiate contempt charges or “hold” a party “in contempt” on their own while a case is pending before them, though there have always been restrictions to their authority and discretion. 

Federal courts have statutory authority to punish contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401. That statute allows a court to punish misbehavior that obstructs justice, misbehavior by officers of the court (like lawyers),, and disobedience or resistance to its lawful orders.

A key distinction exists between civil contempt charges and criminal contempt charges:

• Civil contempt charges are mainly designed to coerce compliance with an order, such as by imposing fines or jail time, or compensate a party that has been harmed by a violation of an order. A party may move to hold someone in contempt, or the trial court can initiate civil contempt proceedings on its own. Trial court judges have considerable authority and discretion to hold parties and non-parties in civil contempt, and those parties have less protections and rights in civil contempt proceedings. 
• Criminal contempt charges are punitive and aim to punish past conduct and vindicate the court’s authority, usually through a jail sentence or substantial fine. Trial court judges can initiate criminal contempt proceedings on their own or on motion of a party, but there are significant statutory limitations on their power, and those accused of criminal contempt have significant rights under federal law and the U.S. Constitution, including a right to a jury trial if the potential sentence is over 6 months.

What happens in criminal contempt proceedings?

In the Eleventh Circuit, a criminal contempt conviction requires proof that a lawful, reasonably specific order existed and that the defendant willfully violated it. Criminal contempt proceedings in federal court are governed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42. The rule requires:

• Written notice describing the contempt charge and the essential facts; 
• Clear identification that criminal contempt is being charged; 
• Time to prepare a defense; and 
• Prosecution by the government or an independent attorney, not by counsel who represents a private party in the underlying case.

Critically, the trial court must first request that the U.S. Attorney prosecute the criminal contempt charge. If the U.S. Attorney declines, the court must appoint an independent, non-biased private lawyer. The Supreme Court has emphasized that an attorney who represents an interested party cannot serve as the prosecutor in a criminal contempt case because the prosecutor must be disinterested and act in the public interest.

Our motion to dismiss the contempt proceedings

In the warden’s case, we filed a comprehensive motion to dismiss the contempt proceedings against the warden. The motion focused on three main arguments that can be made in criminal contempt proceedings:

1. The warden was not subject to criminal contempt charges because the court did not comply with Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

   While the court had indicated that it was leaning toward treating the contempt charges against the Warden as criminal contempt and had warned the warden that he could face up to six months in custody, we argued that the court had not complied with the strict and detailed requirements under Rule 42 or 18 U.S.C. § 401.
   
   We argued there had not been a proper criminal-contempt notice specifically alleging that the Warden had willfully violated a court order, no request to the U.S. Attorney’s Office to prosecute, and no appointment of an independent prosecutor as required by Supreme Court precedent when private counsel are involved. We made it clear that, while the court had a valid interest in ensuring its orders were followed, the proceedings in this case had gone off the rails and did not follow the rules and requirements.

    

2. There was no prima facie case, much less any credible evidence, that the warden had “willfully violated” a court order.

   We argued that the warden was in fact innocent of the charges and that the detainee was making false allegations. We interviewed several witnesses at the detention facility who corroborated our defense, and we argued that there was no evidence that the detainee had ever been denied access to the law library. We conducted a thorough investigation and were ready to attack his credibility at the hearing.
   
   In addition to arguing our client’s innocence, we also argued that the court’s order was not procedurally valid and failed to make out a prime facie case against the warden. We pointed out that the order was not specifically addressed to the warden, it was vague in its language and its requirements, and the detainee had not sufficiently shown that the warden was aware of the order when he allegedly violated it.

    

3. The contempt charges were moot since the detainee had recently been moved to another facility after filing his contempt motion.

   Finally, we argued that, even if there had been a violation, any civil contempt charge would be moot. Through our investigation, we learned that the detainee had been moved to another facility. We also obtained information that he had pleaded guilty in his criminal case, making his access to the law library a “moot” issue.

Prior to our involvement in the case, the detainee’s lawyer informed the warden and general counsel for the facility that they would only withdraw the contempt charges if sweeping reforms were implemented at the warden’s facility. 

After we filed our motion, however, the detainee offered to withdraw the contempt charges if the warden agreed to a quarterly meeting with the federal defense bar for a year. The warden and his leadership team decided that they would voluntarily agree to these meetings, but we insisted that this would be an informal agreement that is not binding in court.

The detainee ultimately filed a motion to withdraw the contempt charges, and the judge granted that motion, effectively ending the contempt proceeding. There was no finding of contempt against the warden, no fines or jail time, no injunction rewriting facility policies; and no ongoing court supervision of day-to-day jail operations–a big win for the warden.

Why this matters for wardens, detention facilities, and legal practitioners

For our client, the bottom line was simple: a threatened criminal contempt case disappeared, and the facility retained control over its own policies and operations. This case shows how quickly routine operational disputes in a detention facility can escalate into a personal legal threat against a warden or jail administrator. It also shows that contempt proceedings must follow strict rules, especially if they are criminal in nature. 

Our role in this case was to step in quickly, force the court and opposing counsel to follow the law that governs criminal contempt, and push back against an overreaching attempt to use contempt as a vehicle for facility-wide reform. That approach led to a full withdrawal of the contempt motions and a resolution that protected both the warden and the institution he leads.

Contact us if you are facing criminal or civil contempt proceedings in federal court.