Intermediate State Appellate Court Ruling Fails to Override Qualified Immunity Defense in Over-Detention Suit
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that a ruling from the Florida First District Court of Appeals (DCA) falls short of the clarity of the law to defeat a defense of qualified immunity. A Florida prisoner was over-detained by 140 days due to prison officials incorrectly forfeiting statutory gain time. The DCA ruled in another case that prison officials have no authority to forfeit statutory gain time. See: Baranko v. Wainright, 448 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). After this ruling was issued, the prisoner moved prison officials to reinstate the 140 days. When this request was denied the prisoner moved for habeas corpus relief in state court.
Prison officials responded to the habeas petition by arguing Baranko was wrongly decided and requested that the court overrule it. The state court declined and entered habeas relief. The prisoner was then released and brought suit for damages alleging Eighth Amendment violations for the over-detention. The district court dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. The Eleventh Circuit held the department's misinterpretation of the law was a reasonable one and that it was entitled to attempt to persuade the intermediate court that its prior decision was in error. The district court was affirmed. See: Lee v. Dugger, 902 F.2d 822 (11th Cir. 1990).
Prison officials responded to the habeas petition by arguing Baranko was wrongly decided and requested that the court overrule it. The state court declined and entered habeas relief. The prisoner was then released and brought suit for damages alleging Eighth Amendment violations for the over-detention. The district court dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. The Eleventh Circuit held the department's misinterpretation of the law was a reasonable one and that it was entitled to attempt to persuade the intermediate court that its prior decision was in error. The district court was affirmed. See: Lee v. Dugger, 902 F.2d 822 (11th Cir. 1990).
Related legal case
Lee v. Dugger
| Year | 1990 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 902 F.2d 822 (11th Cir. 1990) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
Ageloff v. Delta Airlines Inc., 902 F.2d 822 (11th Cir. 06/04/1990)
[1] U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
[2] No. 86-6022
[3] 902 F.2d 822, 1990
[4] June 04, 1990
[5] HAROLD AGELOFF AND CAROL M. AGELOFF, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF SCOTT ALAN AGELOFF, DECEASED, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
DELTA AIRLINES, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida; Thomas E. Scott, District Judge. No. 86-8035-CIV; Scott, Judge.
[7] James A. Dillian, BARWICK & DILLIAN, P.A., Lyndall M. Lambert, Howard E. Barwick, Thomas E. Ice, Miami Shones, Florida, for Defendant-Appellant.
[8] Edna L. Caruso, West Palm Beach, Florida, Robert M. Montgomery, Jr., MONTGOMERY & LARMOYEUX, West Palm Beach, Florida, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
[9] Vance, * and Anderson, Circuit Judges, and Brown, **, Senior Circuit Judge.
[10] Author: Per Curiam
[11] The circumstances of this case are set out in full in Ageloff v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 860 F.2d 379 (11th Cir.1988). The basic questions of Florida law were certified to the Supreme Court of Florida in Ageloff v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 867 F.2d 1268 (11th Cir.1989). The Supreme Court of Florida has answered the certified questions in Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Ageloff, 552 So.2d 1089 (Fla.1989).
[12] In our opinion published at 860 F.2d 379, we rejected several claims asserted by appellant Delta Airlines, thus affirming the district court in part. We reversed the district court's allowance of expert witness fees in excess of the statutory amount. Id. at 390. We certified the major questions and deferred ruling on subsidiary evidentiary issues. Id. at 389. The Supreme Court of Florida resolved the certified issues in favor of appellees and against Delta Airlines, Inc. 552 So.2d 1089. In light of the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida, the subsidiary evidentiary issues previously deferred are due to be resolved in favor of appellees and against Delta Airlines, Inc.
[13] Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed to the extent that expert witness fees were allowed in excess of the statutory amount, but is affirmed in all other respects.
[14] Disposition
[15] AFFIRMED IN PART.
[16] REVERSED IN PART.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judges Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[17]
[18]
[1] U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
[2] No. 86-6022
[3] 902 F.2d 822, 1990
[4] June 04, 1990
[5] HAROLD AGELOFF AND CAROL M. AGELOFF, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF SCOTT ALAN AGELOFF, DECEASED, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
DELTA AIRLINES, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida; Thomas E. Scott, District Judge. No. 86-8035-CIV; Scott, Judge.
[7] James A. Dillian, BARWICK & DILLIAN, P.A., Lyndall M. Lambert, Howard E. Barwick, Thomas E. Ice, Miami Shones, Florida, for Defendant-Appellant.
[8] Edna L. Caruso, West Palm Beach, Florida, Robert M. Montgomery, Jr., MONTGOMERY & LARMOYEUX, West Palm Beach, Florida, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
[9] Vance, * and Anderson, Circuit Judges, and Brown, **, Senior Circuit Judge.
[10] Author: Per Curiam
[11] The circumstances of this case are set out in full in Ageloff v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 860 F.2d 379 (11th Cir.1988). The basic questions of Florida law were certified to the Supreme Court of Florida in Ageloff v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 867 F.2d 1268 (11th Cir.1989). The Supreme Court of Florida has answered the certified questions in Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Ageloff, 552 So.2d 1089 (Fla.1989).
[12] In our opinion published at 860 F.2d 379, we rejected several claims asserted by appellant Delta Airlines, thus affirming the district court in part. We reversed the district court's allowance of expert witness fees in excess of the statutory amount. Id. at 390. We certified the major questions and deferred ruling on subsidiary evidentiary issues. Id. at 389. The Supreme Court of Florida resolved the certified issues in favor of appellees and against Delta Airlines, Inc. 552 So.2d 1089. In light of the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida, the subsidiary evidentiary issues previously deferred are due to be resolved in favor of appellees and against Delta Airlines, Inc.
[13] Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed to the extent that expert witness fees were allowed in excess of the statutory amount, but is affirmed in all other respects.
[14] Disposition
[15] AFFIRMED IN PART.
[16] REVERSED IN PART.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judges Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[17]
[18]