AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
False Imprisonment/Wrongful Detention
Monthly
Law Journal Article: Civil Liability for Wrongful
Detention of Detainees and Prisoners, Part 1, 2012 (4) AELE Mo. L. J.
301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Civil Liability for Wrongful
Detention of Detainees and Prisoners, Part 2, 2012 (5) AELE Mo. L. J.
301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: The Need for Prompt Probable
Cause Hearings, 2012 (8) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
A man was
searched during a traffic stop and a vitamin bottle containing pills was found.
Officers conducted a field test which proved negative for controlled
substances. They arrested him and an evidence technician at the police station
also got a negative result for controlled substances when he tested the pills
but reported that one of the pills tested “positive for the probable presence
of ecstasy.” He was charged with unlawful possession and a judge, relying
solely on an officer’s complaint, ruled that there was probable cause to hold
the detainee pending trial. A state police lab then again tested the pills and
found no controlled substance, but not before the detainee had been in custody
for 48 days. The detainee sued the city and its officers more than two years
after he was arrested but less than two years since the criminal case was
dismissed. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected lower court rulings that a two year
statute of limitations barred an unlawful arrest claim and that the pretrial detention
after legal process was initiated barred a Fourth Amendment claim. The Fourth
Amendment prohibits detention without probable cause. When the legal process
has begun, but probable cause was not satisfied, as here where the judge’s
probable cause determination was allegedly based on fabricated evidence, it
does not cut off a Fourth Amendment claim. The unlawful detention claim was
properly brought under the Fourth Amendment, rather than the due process
clause. On remand, the appeals court was ordered to hold further proceedings on
when the claim accrued, unless it found that the city waived its timeliness
argument. Manuel v. Joliet,
#14-9496, 197 L. Ed. 2d 312, 2017 U.S. Lexis 2021, 85 U.S.L.W. 4130.
A man was sentenced to 18 months of incarceration, with 560 days of credit for
time served, covering the entire incarceration period. At the sentencing
hearing, the judge stated that the defendant “may be supervised . . . if the
parole board determines it is necessary.” The board would make that determination
“[b]efore [he is] released,” and the sheriff’s office was to “process him.” The
judge predicted that the defendant will never be transported.” The sheriff
failed to release the prisoner for a couple of days after sentencing, and by
the time the judgment was filed, the sheriff had processed the prisoner to the
state Department of Corrections, where the time served credit was applied, and
he was released. In a lawsuit against the sheriff in his official capacity for
false imprisonment and violation of Fourteenth Amendment due process, a federal
appeals court upheld dismissal of all claims. While sheriffs in Ohio are
generally regarded as county policymakers, state law required him to transport
the prisoner to the Department. As he acted as an arm of the state in doing so,
he was entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from being sued in
federal court. Jones v. Hamilton Cty. Sheriff.
#16-3259, 838 F.3d 782 (6th Cir. 2016).
A California man served part of a sentence
for attempted murder before a federal court granted him habeas corpus relief
for ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to present alibi testimony
that the court found to be credible. He applied for compensation for wrongful
imprisonment from the state’s Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board.
The Board denied his claim after finding that he had not shown that he was
factually innocent of the crime. An intermediate state appeals court held that
the Board erred by refusing to be bound by the federal court’s order. It
reversed and remanded for a new hearing, stating that it was reasonably
probable that consideration of the federal court’s findings would cause the
Board to award compensation. Madrigal v. Victim Compensation & Government
Claims Board, #B265105, 2016 Cal.
App. Lexis 1109.
A federal inmate was
erroneously awarded $172,465 in damages for false imprisonment under the Unjust
Conviction and Imprisonment Act, 28 U.S.C.S. §§ 1495 and 2513(e). His lawsuit
sought damages for 2,273 days he spent in pretrial an post-trial confinement
before his conviction for transportation of a firearm in interstate commerce by
a convicted felon was reversed. But he received credit for each day he was in
confinement against a 15 year sentence he received after pleading guilty to
mailing a threatening communication and other charges. Therefore, there
remained no "period of incarceration" associated with the firearms
charge that allowed him to receive an award of damages. Crooker v. United
States, #15-5056, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 12762 (Fed. Cir.).
An immigration
detainee claimed that he was kept in the custody of immigration authorities for
almost 11 months, far longer than the 90-day statutory period for removal under
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(1)(A). He sought to
assert a Bivens federal civil rights claim against various government officials
on the basis that they allegedly made false statements to prolong his
detention, knowing that the removal order could not legally be carried out. A federal
appeals court held that no such civil rights claim was available to the
plaintiff because the INA provides for sufficient meaningful remedies and
Congress did not provide any avenues for the plaintiff and similarly situated
aliens to seek money damages. Alvarez v. ICE, #14-14611, 016 U.S. App. Lexis
5506 (11th Cir.).
A D.C. prisoner was incarcerated for over two
decades in both federal and state prisons on a conviction for raping and
robbing a woman in 1981 when he was 18. After his parole, he was required to
register as a sex offender, limiting his employment, housing, and other
opportunities. During his incarceration, he suffered multiple instances of
several sexual and physical assaults, and contracted HIV. In 2012, at the age
of 50, he was exonerated and determined to be actually innocent of the robbery
and rape, based on DNA evidence. He reached a settlement of claims against the
federal government under the Unjust Convictions Act, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1495 and
2513, and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671 et seq. of
$1,128,082.19, based on $50,000 times the 22.56 years he was incarcerated.
Continuing to pursue his claims against the District of Columbia under the D.C.
Unjust Imprisonment Act, D.C. Code Sec. 2-421 et. seq., he was awarded
$9,154,500 in damages for wrongful conviction, unjust imprisonment, sexual and
physical assaults, contracting HIV, lost income, and physical and psychological
injuries. A D.C. court found that his wrongful conviction and unjust
imprisonment had been a proximate cause of all these damages. It also rejected
an argument that D.C. was entitled to an offset from the award for the amount
of the plaintiff's settlement with the federal government. Odom v. District of
Columbia, #2013-CA-3239, 2015 D.C. Super. Lexis 2.
An Illinois prisoner claimed that the amount of
time he had served prior to being sentenced was improperly calculated,
resulting in him not being given sufficient credit for time served, and
therefore being incarcerated for an extra four months. He sued the county
sheriff and the court clerk, claiming that they were negligent in calculating
and forwarding the information. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the
prisoner did have a private right of action against the sheriff for incorrectly
calculating the time served, even though the statute did not explicitly grant
one. An implied right was found as necessary to provide an adequate remedy.
While the statute only imposed on the court clerk the duty to accurately
forward to the Department of Corrections the information received from the
sheriff, the dismissal of claims against the clerk was without prejudice to the
possibility that the plaintiff could amend his complaint to still state a claim
against the clerk. Cowper v. Nyberg, 2015 IL 117811, 2015 Ill. Lexis 319.
A prisoner's release date was recalculated
because of inaccurate information about how much time he had served in the
county jail for theft. He had also been previous convicted as a sex offender.
Advice was sought from the state's Attorney General, and the prisoner was not
released when he expected. After he was finally released, he sued employees of
the state Department of Corrections for false imprisonment and violation of his
constitutional rights. A federal appeals court found that the defendants had
not acted with deliberate indifference to the length of the plaintiff's
incarceration, having sought legal advice and clarification from the Attorney
General. Available state court remedies barred a federal due process claim.
Armato v. Grounds, 13-1995, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 17265 (7th Cir.).
A U.S. citizen working at a construction site was
arrested along with other employees and the contractor, after the contractor
allegedly sold drugs to an undercover officer. When arrested, the plaintiff had
a wallet with his driver's license, Social Security card, debit card, and
health insurance card. His place of birth was listed as in New Jersey. Despite
this, an officer, believing that he had given false information, contacted
immigration authorities, who issued an immigration detainer, The detainee later
sued, claiming that he was improperly detained without probable cause for over
48 hours, without notice of the basis of his detention or an opportunity to
contest it. A federal appeals court reversed the dismissal of his false
imprisonment claim. An immigration detainer is permissive, and did not compel
the defendants to detain him. They were free to disregard it, and therefore
could not use as a defense that their own decision or policy did not cause the
alleged deprivation of constitutional rights. Galarza v. Szalczyk, #12-3991,
2014 U.S. App. Lexis 4000 (3rd Cir.).
A prisoner sought damages for injuries he
received when he was attacked by another prisoner at a county detention facility.
He claimed that the facility staff were negligent in classifying him and
housing him with his assailant, and because they failed to release him in a
timely manner. Overturning an award of damages, the Supreme Court of Tennessee
found that the injuries that he received as a result of the delay in releasing
him were not reasonably foreseeable. There had been no prior incident between
the two prisoners. King v. Anderson County, #E2012-00386-SC-R11, 2013 Tenn.
Lexis 989.
A federal appeals court ruled that
federal law enforcement officers whose unlawful conduct causes a person to be
held in pretrial detention for three months without probable cause, may be
liable for a Fourth Amendment claim asserted as a Bivens claim (a direct
constitutional claim). The court ruled that "an individual's Fourth
Amendment right to be free from seizure but upon probable cause continues
through the pretrial period, 2 and that, in certain circumstances, injured
parties can vindicate that right through a § 1983 or Bivens action." The
two defendant officers were denied qualified immunity on a claim that they
falsified their identification of the plaintiff as the suspect in an affidavit
for an arrest warrant. The statute of limitations did not expire at a given
time from the arrest, but rather from the date of the end of the wrongful
incarceration as the continued detention without probable cause was a
continuing wrong. Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, #12-1053, 723 F.3d 91 (1st Cir.
2013).
Four former Iowa prisoners sued the state
director of the Department of Corrections, seeking damages from him in his
individual capacity for violating their federal civil rights by failing to take
action to prevent them from being detained beyond their release dates. He was
entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. While a state Supreme Court
decision concerning prisoner release dates imposed a duty on him to investigate
and recalculate affected inmate release dates, that decision did not impose a
clear deadline for the amount of time he had to recalculate thousands of
release dates, including those of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, he was not
fairly warned that the failure to complete those calculations within a specific
period of time could violate the plaintiffs' Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment
rights. Scott v. Baldwin, #12-3350, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 16194 (9th Cir.).
The California Department of Corrections
was statutorily immune under state law from a lawsuit for damages stemming from
the alleged erroneous revocation of parole. The plaintiff could not pursue his
false imprisonment claim on the basis of his detention on a supposed parole
violation after his parole had already expired. Torres v. Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, #B242586, 2013 Cal. App. Lexis 526.
A class of noncitizens was entitled to a
preliminary injunction against their continued detention under federal
immigration statutes without individualized bond hearings and a judicial
determination as to whether their continued detention was justified. The plaintiffs
were likely to prevail on their claim that a federal statute only allowed for
six months of mandatory detention for alleged violations of immigration
statutes, after which a bond hearing was required. Rodriguez v. Robbins,
#12-56734, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 7565 (9th Cir.).
A man who was detained for eight months by
immigration authorities was initially agreed to be a U.S. citizen by the
defendants in a lawsuit that he brought over his alleged unlawful seizure and
false imprisonment. As a citizen, these claims were not barred under a 1996
immigration act, but did bar such claims by aliens. After the trial court
dismissed his lawsuit for failing to state a claim, the federal government
cancelled his U.S. citizenship, contending that it had been obtained illegally
and fraudulently. A federal appeals court ordered proceedings in the trial
court to determine whether the plaintiff was a citizen, as, only then could he
pursue his claims and an appeal of the dismissal by the trial court. Belleri
v. United States, #12-11564, 712 F.3d 543 (11th Cir. 2013).
A federal court has approved an almost $18
million settlement to approximately 1,600 teenagers and their parents who
claimed that the young people were wrongfully incarcerated at two for-profit
youth detention centers by two county judges who were accused of taking over $2
million in payments from the real estate developer who built the facilities.
Over 4,000 juvenile convictions issued by one of the judgers were thrown out
based on evidence that he frequently tried juveniles without lawyers and
routinely sent many to the juvenile facilities for months for the most petty of
offenses. The two judges are accused of receiving money from the developer and
extorting funds from the facilities' co-owner. Around $4.3 million in
attorneys' fees is to be paid, with most of the juveniles receiving between
$500 and $5,000. Dawn v. Ciavarella, #3:10-cv-00797, U.S. Dist. Court (M.D.
Pa.), reported in The Times Herald, Norristown, Pa. (January 10, 2013).
A man arrested and allegedly detained in a county
jail for nine days without formal charges claimed that he was improperly denied
access to Oxycontin for his pain caused by his Klippel-Trenaunay Syndrome. That
medication had been prescribed by his regular doctor. Jail medical personnel
substituted other pain medication that was non-narcotic. The detainee failed to
show that this was a substantial violation from accepted professional medical
standards or that jail nurses acted with deliberate indifference in following a
jail doctor's instructions. A due process claim for his detention failed as he
was brought before a court within 72 hours of his arrest, held without bail
pursuant to a court order, and was released when the prosecutor failed to file
formal charges within the time allowed by the court. Holloway v. Delaware
County Sheriff, #12-2592, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 23823 ((7th Cir.).
Two California prisoners were kept confined
beyond their scheduled dates of release for the purpose of completing an
evaluation of whether they should be classified as sexually violent predators
and therefore civilly committed. In both cases, the parole board had issued
45-day parole holds. The California Supreme Court found that the definition of
what a "good cause" was for holding a prisoner beyond their sentence,
contained in a state regulation, was invalid, but the parole board's reliance
on it was excusable since no prior court decision had invalidated it. The
board's action was excusable as a good faith mistake of law. In re Lucas,
#S181788, 53 Cal. 4th 839, 137 Cal. Rptr. 3d 595, 269 P.3d 1160 (2012).
Former prisoners of state and city prisons in New
York claimed that their due process rights were violated because they were kept
incarcerated past the end of their court ordered sentences. Because there was
no clearly established law concerning the issue of whether such prolonged
incarceration violated due process, the defendant city and state prison
officials and employees were entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability.
The court emphasized that its decision did not "trivialize" the
prisoners' protected liberty interest in being released from custody promptly
after their sentences were concluded. Sudler v. City of New York, #11–1198,
2012 U.S. App. Lexis 16438 (2nd Cir.).
A man who was sentenced to an alcohol treatment
program on a DUI conviction was mistakenly held instead in jail for a month
before the error in interpreting the sentencing order was discovered. He sued a
number of correctional employees for alleged violations of his Fourth, Fifth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments rights in falsely imprisoning him. The trial
court denied the defendants' motions for qualified immunity. The appeals court
found that the trial judge erred by failing to make a detailed analysis of
whether each defendant was entitled to qualified immunity on each of the
constitutional claims and therefore ordered further proceedings. Handt v.
Lynch, #11-1829, 681 F.3d 939 (8th Cir. 2012).
A prisoner's conviction for criminal sexual
conduct was reversed by a Michigan state appeals court, and remanded for a new
trial. For unknown reasons, one was not scheduled and the trial court was
unaware of the 1989 reversal until 2007. As a result, he spent over seventeen
years as a pretrial detainee after the reversal of his conviction. Rejecting
his claim that the county was liable for violating the plaintiff's right to a
speedy trial, the appeals court noted that there was no evidence that the
prosecutor was directly responsible for the failure to respond to the appeals
court's remand order. There was also no indication that the need for action at
any time became obvious to a county policymaker, nor was what happened a
predictable result of a county policy or inadequate training of assistant prosecutors.
Heyerman v. County of Calhoun, #10-2322, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 10731, 2012 Fed.
App. 160P (6th Cir.).
A man who completed a sentence for sexually
abusing his minor daughter was kept incarcerated for an additional 375 days
while the county sought to find an available place where he would be allowed to
live as a registered sex offender. Rejecting a claim for false imprisonment
under these circumstances, the court found that his claim was barred by the
principles stated in Heck v. Humphrey, #93-6188, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because
his incarceration was not reversed, expunged, invalidated, or otherwise
impugned by an earlier proceeding. A state appeals court decision remanding his
habeas claim to the trial court did not satisfy the Heck requirements.
Marlowe v. Fabian, #11–2748, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 7888 (8th Cir.).
A visitor to New Orleans was arrested for public
intoxication and placed in the local jail just before Hurricane Katrina struck.
He and other pretrial detainees were moved to higher cell tiers when water
began rising in their cells, but in their new location, they were in their
cells for days without water or food. Eventually evacuated by boat to a highway
overpass with thousands of others from local detention facilities, he allegedly
experienced additional thirst, hunger, and heat. The failure to bring him to
court within 48 hours for a probable cause determination was excused by an
emergency situation exception to the general rule, barring his false
imprisonment claim. The failure to give him back his cell phone to allow him to
call his attorney when the jail phone system was overloaded did not violate his
rights under the circumstances because of the dangers of allowing detainees to
possess cell phones. There was no liability for the various hardships cause by
the circumstances of the hurricane. Waganfeald v. Gusman, #11-30081, 2012 U.S.
App. Lexis 5139 (5th Cir.).
A prisoner was sentenced as a habitual offender
on his conviction for lewd and indecent acts on the basis of a prior rape
conviction. The sentence was for "perpetual imprisonment for treatment
until his rehabilitation, to last a minimum of twelve years." But he was
not released until 27 years in custody, 15 years later than when he was
eligible for release. He claimed that prison officials were liable for
keeping him in custody beyond his lawful term of imprisonment, and that he
ceased needing additional therapy treatment long before he was released. The
defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the prisoner failed to
show that any of them individually were linked to specific acts that prevented
him from being released earlier. Feliciano-Hernandez v. Pereira-Castillo,
#11–1052, 663 F.3d 527 (1st Cir. 2011).
A prisoner was held longer than he should have
been, and argued that, had prison officials checked court records, they would
have noticed that he was ordered to serve concurrent rather than consecutive
sentences, and released him sooner. The defendants were entitled to qualified
immunity, since there was no clearly established case law imposing a duty on
them to review a prisoner's original court records "beyond those in his
institutional file." Alston v. Read, #10-15332, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 24741
(9th Cir.).
An Arizona man on lifetime probation since 1997
for attempted sexual contact with a minor violated his probation and was given
a sentencing order in 2006 with a prison term of ten years. He remained
incarcerated until 2009, even though the state supreme court ruled in 2008 that
the maximum period of probation for his offense was five years, rather than
probation for life. Therefore, when he violated probation in 2006, he had
already been on probation longer than authorized by law for his offense. In his
lawsuit against correctional officials, he claimed that his constitutional
right not to remain incarcerated under a sentencing order subsequently held to
be invalid was violated, and that the defendants were negligent under state
law. The appeals court held that there was no duty, or authority, for
correctional officials to review the legality of a prisoner's sentencing order,
so they could not be held liable for failing to do so. Additionally, the
defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the federal civil rights
claim, as his continued incarceration had not violated any clearly established
federal right. Stein v. Ryan, #10-16527, 2011 U.S.App. Lexis 23027
(9th Cir.).
A Mississippi man convicted of breaking into a
car received a five year sentence, with four years conditionally suspended, and
the first year to be served in house arrest. After he was arrested again during
that first year on a misdemeanor charge, he was imprisoned for a total of
fifteen months, until a state court held that the corrections department had
not had the authority to reinstate the suspended four years of his sentence. He
sued, claiming a violation of his constitutional rights. The appeals court held
that the prisoner's detention for over 40 days in the absence of either a
facially valid court order or warrant was a violation of his due process
rights. The defendant Commissioner of the state Department of Corrections was
entitled to qualified immunity from liability, however, since the department's
interpretation of the original sentencing order was objectively reasonable,
even though a state court subsequently held that the interpretation was wrong.
Porter v. Epps, #09-60324, 659 F.3d 440 (5th Cir. 2011).
A Missouri prisoner sought damages for false
imprisonment, claiming that he remained incarcerated for fourteen months after
the end of his sentence, because prison officials failed to credit him for time
served prior to sentencing, contrary to the court's order. The state Department
of Corrections was immune from a claim for damages under the Eleventh Amendment.
The trial court acted erroneously, however, in dismissing the former prisoner's
damage claims against individuals on the basis that his proper remedy was a
habeas petition. He was not seeking release from custody, the appeals court
noted, but compensation for prior unlawful confinement. Harris v. McSwain;
#11-1320, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 9527 (Unpub. 8th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that he had been
incarcerated beyond the maximum terms of his sentences for state convictions
and a parole violation, and that the defendants violated his due process rights
by incorrectly calculating his maximum sentence and by failing to conduct a
parole revocation hearing when they revoked his parole and continued to detain
him. A federal appeals court found that a federal lawsuit for damages was
unavailable when success would necessarily imply the invalidity of the fact or
duration of his confinement, which had not been otherwise invalidated. McKinney
v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, #10-3331, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis
26124 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that various correctional
officials and a prosecutor conspired to charge him with assaulting another
inmate and wrongfully used that charge to keep him incarcerated beyond the
maximum term of his sentence. He sought damages for false imprisonment and
malicious prosecution. The prosecutor was entitled to absolute immunity for his
decision to prosecute the plaintiff. A number of other defendants could not be
held liable, as the prisoner did not really show their personal involvement in
his prosecution, but instead simply sought to impose liability based on their
supervisory role in the correctional system. The prisoner's demand for release
had to be pursued in a habeas petition, and was relief not obtainable in a
federal civil rights lawsuit. Tindell v. Pennsylvania, #10-2319, 2010 U.S. App.
Lexis 22430 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
An Ohio prisoner was placed on community control
for a period of five years. The state moved to revoke that, and a court granted
the motion. A state appeals court held that the revocation was improper because
it occurred after the five year term had expired. He then sued the correctional
department for false imprisonment. The state appeals court rejected the claim,
since the judgment originally entered mandating his imprisonment was not void
on its face, and its invalidity was only apparent after the appeals court
decision ordering his release. McKinney v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
and Corrections, #09AP-960, 2010 Ohio App. Lexis 1908 (10th Dist.).
A prisoner was serving a number of
sentences, including one for parole violation, with some to be served
consecutively. In reviewing his status prior to his scheduled re-parole release
date, it was discovered that his maximum sentence had expired 31 days earlier.
This was because one judge, in resentencing the prisoner, failed to specify
that the new sentence was to run consecutively to other existing sentences. He
was then released. He sued various officials, seeking damages for violation of
his civil rights in keeping him confined past his sentence. Upholding summary
judgment for the defendants, the appeals court ruled that their actions were a
mistake, and, at most, negligence, and did not constitute deliberate
indifference to the prisoner's rights in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Granberry v. Chairman of the Penn. Board of Probation and Parole, #10-1514,
2010 U.S. App. Lexis 20827 (Unpub.3rd Cir.).
A former Pennsylvania prisoner sued a records
specialist with the state Department of Corrections, claiming that his alleged
ineffectual action in resolving supposed errors in his sentencing calculation
resulted in him being incarcerated beyond the maximum term of his imprisonment.
Ruling that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity, a federal appeals
court found that the defendant did not act with deliberate indifference towards
any clearly established right that the plaintiff had. The records specialist
responded quickly and communicated the issue to the appropriate parties for
review. While the issue took some time to resolve, it was not a simple one, as
his proper release date was "complicated by multiple convictions, parole,
parole violation, 'backtime,' and vacated sentences." There was no
evidence that anything the records specialist did caused any delay in the
prisoner's release. Montanez v. Thompson, #05-4430, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 8318
(3rd Cir.).
Former detainees in a jail claimed that they were
wrongfully kept in custody for periods of time ranging from twenty-six to
twenty-nine hours after a court had ordered their releases. A federal appeals
court held that the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department was entitled to summary
judgment in their federal civil rights lawsuit, as the department's "many
affirmative efforts" to attempt to remedy the problem indicated that there
was no policy amounting to deliberate indifference to the detainees' rights.
Mortimer v. Baca, #07-55393 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 2500 (9th Cir.).
Sheriff was not entitled to qualified immunity on
prisoner's claim that he was improperly kept in custody for almost a month
after drug charges against him were dropped in another county. The sheriff
failed to show that he had acted in good faith, based on the record. McGee v.
Carrillo, No. 07-51363, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 21960 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Federal court rejects challenge to the
constitutionality of the practices of a state judge and other defendants who
allegedly unnecessarily lengthened the confinement of persons found incompetent
to stand trial, and to procedures used by state mental health authorities to
involuntarily hospitalize persons found mentally ill. Monaco v. Hogan,
CV-98-3386, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 70510 (E.D.N.Y.).
Prisoner re-incarcerated for committing criminal
offenses while out on parole was legally re-incarcerated, but was not afforded
a timely parole violation hearing, resulting in him being falsely imprisoned
for 74 days. The inmate was entitled, under Ohio law, to damages for mental
distress, and to compensation for the days he was falsely imprisoned. The
measure of damages for false imprisonment, however, was not that afforded under
state law to an innocent person who was wrongfully imprisoned, but rather the
lesser amount provided to a person falsely imprisoned beyond the term of his
lawful incarceration. Dentigance v. Adult Parole Authority, Case No.
2005-04373, 2008 Ohio Misc. Lexis 175 (Ohio Ct. of Claims).
A prisoner who claimed that the state of Virginia
subjected him to false imprisonment by improperly extending the length of his
prison sentence could pursue a federal civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1983 for money damages. The court noted that the federal courts of appeal were
split about whether a prisoner could obtain money damages in such a case when
it was no longer possible to meet the "favorable termination"
requirement of Heck v. Humphrey, #93-6188, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), via habeas
corpus, but held that the "high purposes" of Sec. 1983 would be
"compromised" if there was no judicial forum to seek relief for
alleged unlawful imprisonment, and ruled that the plaintiff could proceed with
his lawsuit. (Under Heck, in order to recover damages for allegedly
unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by
actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a
1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on
direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state
tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a
federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus). Wilson v. Johnson, No.
07-6347, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15870 (4th Cir.).
An inmate held after the expiration of his
sentence in an Ohio correctional facility failed to show that he was entitled
to damages for lost wages during his false imprisonment when his own statements
showed that, when he was not incarcerated, he performed "odd jobs"
for cash. He also failed to show that he was entitled to damages for emotional
distress, but was awarded a certain amount of damages, including his filing
fee. Thomson v. Dept. of Rehabilitation and Corrections, No. 2006-02617, 2008
Ohio Misc. Lexis 56 (Ohio Ct. of Claims).
While an inmate was kept in the county jail over
200 days past his one-year sentence of incarceration (which was to be followed
by several years of probation), there was no showing that the sheriff either
directly imprisoned him beyond his sentence or was deliberately indifferent to
the consequence of his inaction. The chief jailer had contacted a state
probation and parole officer to determine when the prisoner should be released
on probation, but received no response. Claims against the sheriff in his
individual capacity were, therefore, properly rejected, while further
proceedings were ordered on official capacity claims. Shorts v. Bartholomew,
No. 06-5877, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24634 (6th Cir.).
Jail supervisory personnel were not shown to have
acted with deliberate indifference to the right of prisoners to be released
when ordered by a court. Any mistakes which resulted in the plaintiffs being
detained after such court orders were not the result of jail policies
concerning the processing of court orders, but rather were due to
"unfortunate lapses" by non-supervisory personnel, stemming from cuts
in the jail's budget and staff size. West v. Tillman, No. 06-14479, 2007 U.S.
App. Lexis 20329 (11th Cir.).
Florida prisoner failed to present a valid
federal civil rights claim for false imprisonment based on the fact that he was
kept in custody for seven days longer than he should have, when he failed to
show that either the sheriff's office or a defendant deputy had actual
knowledge of documentation showing that he was entitled to release. Rodriguez
v. Broward Sheriff's Office, No. 06-13171, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9547 (11th
Cir.).
An Ohio prisoner who was not released until five
days after he was entitled to be free could not seek damages for false
imprisonment from the state correctional agency when there was no proof that
the Department had knowledge of a court order granting him additional credit
for time previously served before he was released. Hess v. Dept. of
Rehabilitation and Correction, Case No. 2004-09576, 2006 Ohio Misc. Lexis 194
(Ohio Ct. of Claims). [N/R]
City Department of Corrections was not liable for
damages for having kept an inmate in custody beyond the maximum length of his
sentence. There was no showing that the extended detention was the result of an
official city policy or custom. Dupree v. City of New York, No. 04CV0992, 418
F. Supp. 2d 555 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). [N/R]
Detainee kept for six days at county detention
facility after a judge ordered his release without bail failed to show that a
county policy caused his prolonged incarceration or that there was a widespread
pattern of such problems that the county knew about. Russell v. Hennepin
County, No. 04-3922, 420 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2005). [2006 JB Feb]
A twelve-hour delay in releasing a detainee after
a judge determined that no bail was required on his intoxicated driving charge
did not "shock the conscience," and was not caused by any official
county policy or custom. Federal appeals court upholds summary judgment for
county and sheriff in detainee's due process lawsuit. Lund v. Hennepin County,
No. 05-1791, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 23833 (8th Cir.). [2005 JB Dec]
California parole agents and other defendants
were immune from liability for detainee's incarceration in county jail for 25
days based on mistaken identity under state statute which provides immunity for
both public agencies and employees for claims arising out of determinations as
to whether to parole or release a prisoner. Perez-Torres v. State, No. B179327,
33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 227 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist. 2005). [N/R]
Georgia county sheriffs were not entitled to
qualified immunity against detainees' claim that they were kept in jail past
their scheduled release dates for periods ranging from one to ten days, since
it is clearly required that detainees be released within a reasonable period of
time after there is no lawful basis for their continued confinement. Powell v.
Barrett, No. 1:04-CV-1000, 376 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2005). [N/R]
Ten hour delay in releasing a prisoner from a
county detention facility after she had posted bail was insufficient to show a
violation of her constitutional rights when it was not based on deliberate
indifference by anyone to her right to release, but rather on mere negligence,
including a problem with a new computer system in which she was allegedly
"lost" for several hours. Golberg v. Hennepin County, No. 04-2756,
417 F.3d 808 (8th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Nov]
Florida Department of Corrections did not falsely
imprison an inmate when it allegedly disregarded the language of a sentence
imposed at trial providing that it was to be concurrent with a sentence imposed
against him in an unrelated case. The Florida intermediate appeals court found
that this language was a "nullity" because the sentence referred to
arising out of the prior conviction had already been fully served, so that the
Department was required, by a state statute, to run the new sentence
consecutive to the sentence already served. Whipple v. Department of
Corrections, No. 3D03-2877, 892 So.2d 554 (Fla. App. 3d Dist. 2005). [N/R]
It was clearly established law that deliberately
holding a prisoner in custody beyond a statutorily prescribed mandatory release
date violated the prisoner's constitutional rights, so that Wisconsin
Department of Corrections employees accused of keeping a prisoner incarcerated
for 377 days beyond that date were not entitled to qualified immunity. Allen v.
Guerrero, No. 03-1356, 688 N.W.2d 673 (Wis. App. 2004). [N/R]
Five correctional employees allegedly responsible
for continued incarceration of prisoner for 57 days after a court ordered him
released were not entitled to qualified immunity from his federal civil rights
lawsuit. A sixth employee, whose sole involvement was failing to investigate
further when the prisoner returned from court without a required form, was
granted qualified immunity by appeals court. Davis v. Hall, #02-3923 2004 U.S.
App. Lexis 14385 (8th Cir.). [2004 JB Sep]
U.S. Supreme Court rules that foreign nationals
detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, captured in Afghanistan hostilities, have a
right to access to U.S. courts to challenge the legality of their detention,
and that U.S. citizen detained as an "enemy combatant" for allegedly
fighting against the U.S. in Afghanistan, also had a due process right to access
to a "neutral decision maker" to challenge the factual basis for his
detention. In a third case involving a U.S. citizen detained as an "enemy
combatant" on U.S. soil for alleged involvement in terrorist conspiracy,
Court does not reach ultimate issues because of procedural defects in court
filing. Rasul v. Bush, No. 03-334, 2004 U.S. Lexis 4760; Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, No.
03-6696, 2004 U.S. Lexis 4761; Rumsfeld v. Padilla, No. 03-1027, 2004 U.S.
Lexis 4759. [2004 JB Aug]
County sheriff was not entitled to summary
judgment in lawsuit seeking damages for continued detention of arrestee after
release notice was allegedly received, based on factual disputes about when the
notice was actually received and whether there was deliberate indifference to
the plaintiff's right to release from incarceration at that time. Green v.
Baca, 306 F. Supp. 2d 903 (C.D. Cal. 2004). [N/R]
Statute of limitations on former federal
prisoner's claim against the U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act
(FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1346, 2671 et seq., for negligence in miscalculating
his release date began to run when he obtained habeas relief from his continued
incarceration, rather than on the date that the miscalculation was allegedly
made. Federal appeals court overturns dismissal of lawsuit as time-barred.
Erlin v. U.S., No. 00-16986, 364 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Federal jury awards $750,000 to man incarcerated
for 15 days after misidentified as person sought in outstanding warrant.
Sheriff's department argued, in defense, that there was no duty for it to have
a procedure in place to investigate a detainee's claim that he was not the
suspect sought in a warrant. Hernandez v. Sheahan, No. 99C-6441, U.S. District
Ct., N.D. Ill, Nov. 25, 2003, reported in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, p.
25, February 20, 2004. [N/R]
Prisoner who claimed that his sentence had been
miscalculated, resulting in him being held beyond his proper release date,
could not seek damages following his release when he had failed to previously
have his sentence set aside. The fact that, after his release, habeas action to
challenge the constitutionality of his sentence was no longer available did not
alter the result. Mitchell v. Dept. of Corrections, 272 F. Supp. 2d 464 (M.D.
Pa. 2003). [2003 JB Dec]
New York Department of Correctional Services was
not barred from extending a prisoner's sentence based on a prior error in
calculating his tentative conditional release date. The Department had a
"continuing, non-discretionary, ministerial duty" to make accurate
calculations of terms of imprisonment, a duty that "requires it to correct
known errors." Maguire v. New York State Division of Parole, 757 N.Y.S.2d
391 (A.D. 2003). [N/R]
There was a material issue of fact as to whether a
classification officer and an assistant warden acted with deliberate
indifference to the issue of whether a prisoner was being kept confined beyond
the expiration of his sentence, violating his constitutional right to a timely
release from prison, after prisoner filed a grievance allegedly informing them
of the correct commencement date of his sentence. McCurry v. Moore, 242 F.
Supp. 2d 1167 (N.D. Fla. 2002). [N/R]
When trial court's order dismissed most of
prisoner's claims against county employees for allegedly keeping him
incarcerated beyond his sentence, but failed to dispose of his claims against
one employee, the order was not a final judgment and therefore was not yet
appealable by the prisoner. Eubanks v. McCollum, #2000758, 828 So. 2nd 935 (Ala.
Civ. App. 2002).[N/R]
County's failure to promptly investigate
detainees' claims that they were not the persons sought by arrest warrants
would violate a duty under Washington state law. Such violations, standing
alone, are not a basis for federal civil rights claims, Stalter v. State of
Washington, #27118-4-II, 227351-9-II, 51 P.3d 837 (Wash. App. 2002).
[2002 JB Dec]
Correctional employee was entitled to qualified
immunity for keeping prisoner in custody one day longer than he otherwise would
have been released, based on a verbal representation that there was an
outstanding warrant for his arrest in another jurisdiction. Wilson v. Zellner,
200 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (M.D. Fla. 2002). [2002 JB Oct]
Prisoner's claim contending that seventy days were
unlawfully added to his Missouri state court sentence involved only
interpretations of state law and therefore could not be pursued as a federal
civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Donaldson v. Purkett, #01-3262,
33 Fed. Appx. 233, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 7393, 2002 WL 655549. (8th Cir.). [N/R]
Continued confinement of prisoner for a longer
period of time than that stated in his sentence did not result in liability of
county for false imprisonment and federal civil rights violation when the order
specifying the date of the end of his work release program, violation of which
resulted in his reincarceration, was a "facially valid order" of a
court with proper jurisdiction. Holmberg v. County of Albany, 738 N.Y.S.2d 701
(A.D. 2002). [2002 JB Jun]
State Department of Corrections was required to
honor court accepted plea agreements with prisoners and sentencing court's
imposed sentences, and could not unilaterally modify those sentences based on
its own determination, for instance, that such sentences violated a state
statute concerning when prisoners were entitled to concurrent rather than
consecutive sentences. Correctional officials usurped judicial power by doing
so. Prisoner's due process rights, however, were not violated, as they had no
right to sentences which violated state statutes, and those sentences
"must be vacated." Hamilton v. Freeman, No. COA00-1470, 554 S.E.2d
856 (N.C. App. 2001). [N/R]
Mentally disabled former prisoner and his mother
stated a claim against city and county for failure to adequately train their
employees in case where improper identification of him as a fugitive sought in
a warrant from another state allegedly led to his extradition and two-year
imprisonment. Lee v. County of Los Angeles, #98-55807, 240 F.3d 754 (9th Cir.
2001). [N/R]
Prisoner could not assert a claim for damages
caused by his incarceration when his criminal conviction had not been set
aside. Sims v. Marnocha, No. 3:00-CV-0736, 159 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (N.D. Ind.
2001), citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). [N/R]
Arrestee kept in county jail for twenty-seven
days while waiting for a court-ordered psychological evaluation which was never
performed could not recover damages against the county for false imprisonment
under Florida state law. Summary judgment was denied, however, on federal
constitutional due process claim. Card v. Miami-Dade County, Florida, 147 F.
Supp. 2d 1334 (S.D. Fla. 2001). [N/R]
297:132 Federal appeals court rules that Los
Angeles County sheriff's department, in checking records to determine when
prisoners are to be released, acts on behalf of the county whose jails it
administers, and not as an "arm of the state," and therefore is not
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in lawsuit by former prisoners claiming
that they were improperly detained for longer time periods. Streit v. County of
Los Angeles, #99-55897, 236 F.3d 552 (9th Cir. 2001).
294:85 NY officials reach $3.25 million
settlement in lawsuit over mistaken two-year imprisonment of mentally ill
homeless man extradited to the state after being misidentified as a fugitive
drug dealer. Sanders v. N.Y. Depart. of Corrections, No. 97 Civ. 7112 (DAB),
U.S. Dist. Ct. (S.D.N.Y. April 12, 2001), reported in The New York Times,
National Edition, p. A14 (April 13, 2001).
293:71 Former Texas prisoner, who claimed he was
incarcerated for nine-months after the proper termination of his sentence,
could not seek money damages in federal civil rights lawsuit when his
conviction and sentence were not previously set aside; fact that he could no
longer seek federal habeas relief, since he was no longer in custody, did not
alter the result. Randell v. Johnson, No. 99- 11092, 227 F.3d 300 (5th Cir.
2000).
EDITOR'S NOTE: In reaching this result, the court
disagreed with three other federal appeals circuits which have ruled that
Heck's rule requiring the favorable termination of prior court proceedings
concerning the plaintiff's conviction or sentence should be relaxed for
plaintiffs who have no procedural vehicle to challenge their conviction. See
Jenkins v. Haubert, #98-2408, 179 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1999); Shamaeizadeh v.
Cunigan, #98-5451, 182 F.3d 391 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 531
(1999); and Carr v. O'Leary, #96-3885, 167 F.3d 1124 (7th Cir. 1999). Two other
federal appeals circuits have adopted the same rule. See Cabrera v. City of
Huntington Park, #96-55258, 159 F.3d 374 (9th Cir. 1998), and Figueroa v.
Rivera, #97- 2252, 147 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 1998).
295:99 Existence of state law remedies for false
imprisonment did not bar prisoner's federal civil rights claim that his Fourth
and Eighth Amendment rights were violated when he was allegedly held in custody
for 90 days beyond his scheduled release date; two year Kansas statute of limitations
rather than one-year statute applied to federal
claim. Gragg v. McKune, No. 84,354, 16 P.3d 311
(Kan. App. 2000).
289:5 Mississippi man mistakenly kept in county
jail for ten months after city charges against him were dismissed awarded $36,200
against city; county sheriff and deputy sheriff were not liable when they never
received notice that city charges were resolved. Jones v. City of Jackson,
396-CV-510-LN, U.S. 5 (S.D. Miss.), reported in The National Law Journal, p.
A14 (Oct. 30, 2000).
EDITOR'S NOTE: In another recent case, a prisoner
in Ohio who wound up spending an extra 13 months in a state penitentiary after
his 3-1/2 sentence expired reached a $25,000 settlement from the state. Carter
v. Ohio, settlement reported in The Cleveland, Oh Plain Dealer, August 31,
2000. This was reportedly the largest the state had ever paid in such a case,
with the prior record being an award of $16,106 paid to a prisoner named Corder
in Hamilton County, Ohio in 1994 for 149 days of illegal confinement.
243:40 $5.85 million settlement in class action
suit brought by prisoners detained in county jail for longer than ten hours
after judges ordered their release. Watson v. Sheahan, No. 94 C- 6891, U.S.
Dist. Ct., N.D.Ill, reported in Chicago Sun Times, p. 3 (Nov. 27, 1996).
219:38 Prisoner could recover for false
imprisonment if correctional officials kept him confined beyond the date of
completion of his sentence without "intervening justification."
Corder v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 94 Ohio App. 3d 315, 640 N.E.2d 879
(1994).
Failure to release inmate after court order
suspending his sentence became final deprived him of due process; prison
officials were not entitled to qualified immunity in suit seeking damages;
reliance on advice of counsel did not alter result. Slone v. Herman, 983 F.2d
107 (8th Cir. 1993).