On May 8, 2008, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals upheld the dismissal of a prisoner suit challenging the loss of diminution credits.

Alfred Fraction and Gregory Nutter, Maryland prisoners, sued the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services over the loss of diminution credits following their reincarceration for new offenses. Both Fraction and Nutter had been previously convicted and released on mandatory supervision. When they were returned to custody, the Maryland DOC refused to apply diminution credits earned prior to their release on mandatory supervision. Diminution credits are essentially “good time” credits earned for working and participating in educational programs.

The DOC refused to apply the diminution credits, relying on a Maryland Parole Commission (MPC) policy that prohibits application of such credits to offenders who are reincarcerated. Fraction and Nutter attempted to indirectly attack the MPC policy through the DOC’s refusal to provide the credits.

The court held that the plaintiffs’ challenge was improper because it was the MPC, not the DOC that denied the diminution credits. The court expressed no opinion on the validity of the MPC policy and affirmed the dismissal of the suit. See: Fraction v. Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Correctional …

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that there is no meaningful distinction between incarceration in prison or jail and confinement in a sex offender civil commitment facility, for the purposes of sentence calculation.

The Court’s ruling came in a Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) proceeding, which was dismissed by the trial court, filed by prisoner William J. Sutton. Sutton fulfilled his fifteen year prison sentence and was released under Florida’s Conditional Release Program Act (CRPA), which requires the prisoner to remain under supervision of the Florida Parole Commission for a period of time equal to the gain time awards.

Upon his release, Sutton was transferred to Florida’s civil commitment center for sex offenders to await a trial to have a jury determine whether he qualified for indefinite commitment under the Jimmy Ryce Act (JRA). Under the JRA, the jury must determine if the prisoner is likely to commit new sex offenses, resulting in indefinite commitment upon such a finding.

Thus, upon completion of a prison sentence, prisoners who are deemed to qualify under the JRA pass from criminal to civil commitment. If the jury finds the prisoner is not likely to commit new sex offenses, the prisoner is …

On January 10, 2007, U.S. Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart granted a habeas corpus petition filed by a federal prisoner who alleged that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) miscalculated his good conduct time (GCT).

George Scott Kelly was convicted of felony possession of a firearm in 2003. At the time of Kelly’s sentencing, Kelly had been incarcerated in a California state prison for 28 months on related charges. However, because this time had already been credited against Kelly’s state sentence, the BOP was unable to apply the 28 months toward Kelly’s federal sentence.

To remedy this problem, Kelly’s sentencing judge imposed a sentence of 70 months but reduced the sentence pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline section 5G1.3 to 42 months to reflect the 28 months BOP would not credit to Kelly’s federal sentence.

Upon commitment to the Federal Correctional Institution in Sheridan, Oregon, BOP calculated Kelly’s GCT based on a 42 month sentence as opposed to a 70 month sentence. Kelly filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the calculation. The court granted the petition, finding that “it is clear that the sentencing judge intended to impose a 70-month term of imprisonment.” Accordingly, the court ordered the BOP to recalculate …

A U.S. district court in New York allowed the New York City Police Department (NYCPD) to settle a civil case in 1977 by stipulating and clarifying the NYCPD’s policy on bystanders remaining in the area of an arrest in progress.

Lawyers for both parties agreed that the NYCPD would not admit any violation by any of its employees. According to the order, onlookers shall not be arrested without probable cause. Unless done in a threatening matter, the following are specifically excluded from being deemed probable cause: remaining in the vicinity, speech alone, taking pictures and making note of officers’ names or shield numbers.

If a bystander is taken into custody the arresting officer is required to report it to his supervisor. Upon the issuance of this order, all NYCPD employees were to be made aware of such an order. See: Black v. Codd, USDC, S.D.N.Y., No. 73-Civ-5283.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that 18 U.S.C. sec. 4211(c)(1) creates only a right to an early parole termination hearing, not a right to release in the absence of a timely hearing.

The Court’s ruling came in the appeal of federal parolee Arnold Mitchell, who appealed a Missouri federal district court’s dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. sec. 2241 petition challenging his revocation of probation. Mitchell was convicted in 1988 of federal drug offenses and sentenced to three concurrent 240 month terms of imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release. After serving 102 months, Mitchell was released to parole on March 27, 1997. His parole was scheduled to expire sometime in 2008.

In February 2004, Mitchell was indicted for mail fraud that occurred in 1998. The United States Parole Commission violated Mitchell, rejecting his argument that the revocation was improper because he had not received a 5-year early termination hearing in 2002 under sec. 4211(c)(1).

The Court found that when the House sponsor of the Parole Act spoke, he remarked that “[i]f the Commission fails to act in accordance with these deadlines, the prisoner or parolee would not automatically be released from confinement, but he would compel the …

On November 30, 2005, John McHenry of Delaware County, Pennsylvania was awarded $1,000 in compensatory damages and an additional $15,000 in punitive damages as a result of his civil rights suit for false arrest.

On June 16, 2002, Father's Day, McHenry was arrested in front of his children in his …

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a false imprisonment claim against the United States. Because the action was not brought within the six year limitation period, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Jabari Zakiya was convicted of tax evasion and failing to file income tax returns. In 1994, he was sentenced to 16 months in prison, a 36-month supervised release term and a $25,000 fine.

With good time credit, Zakiya’s release date was February 29, 1996, and his maximum sentence expiration date was in May 1996. Prison officials refused to release Zakiya, however, when he refused to sign an agreement to pay the fine as a condition of supervised release, pursuant to 18 USC sec. 3624(e). Eventually a federal court granted Zakiya’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered his immediate release. See Zakiya v. Reno, 52 F. Supp. 2d 629(E.D. Va. 1999). He was finally released on May 5, 1999.

On May 24, 2007, Zakiya filed suit seeking money damages for false imprisonment between February 29, 1996 and May 5, 1999. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The appellate court affirmed, concluding …

The California Court of Appeal, in 2-1 decision, overruled Governor Schwarzenegger’s fourth reversal of a grant of parole for a 60-year-old female first-degree murderer after finding that her release was not supported by “some evidence” rationally indicating that she presently (35 years after the offense) represents an unreasonable risk to public safety if released on parole.

In 1971, Sandra Lawrence killed the wife of her lover, having shot her six times and then stabbed her four times with a potato peeler. She fled for 11 years, but then turned herself in. After refusing a two-year “deal,” she suffered a first- degree murder conviction at trial and was sentenced to 7 years to life. In 1993 she was granted what turned out to be the first of four grants of parole by the Board of Parole Hearings (Board), each of which was overturned based on some evidence by the Governor then in office, even though no one, “not even a representative of a ‘victims’ rights’ organization,” opposed her release.

The court reviewed relevant recent state and federal case law to determine the meaning of “some evidence” in each forum. Both federal and state courts agreed that California life prisoners have a …

The City of Salinas, California paid a Daly City man $90,000 to settle his lawsuit for unlawful arrest, detention and excessive force.

Maurice Goodman, an African American staff paralegal for the San Mateo County Superior Court, and coach and team president of the Daly City youth football team took his …

Ex federal prisoner and Washington, D.C., resident Isaac McKelvin filed an administrative tort claim with the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), for being incarcerated 11 days past his mandatory release date. He was paid $1,375 to settle the claim.

McKelvin was incarcerated at the …