The law is clearly established that a pre-trial detainee cannot be held for
12 days before being brought before a judge or allowed to pay bail. This
is another case where the plaintiff was picked up on a warrant, there was
no mechanism to ensure that he was taken to court or given the opportunity
to pay or know how much he had to pay, and nobody took any responsibility
for the situation, except for the sergeant to tried three times to contact
the City of Midville on the plaintiff's behalf but could never get anything
but a recording. The court analyzes the question as one of a liberty
interest created by state statutes governing court appearance and
bail-setting. See: Bunyon v. Burke County, 285 F.Supp.2d 1310 (S.D.Ga. 2003).

Second Circuit Discusses Damages for Loss of Liberty, Mental and Emotional
Injury

The plaintiff was involuntarily detained and hospitalized. He prevailed
both on his Fourth Amendment claims for unlawful seizure and his state law
claims for false imprisonment.

For damages purposes, the court treats mental and emotional injury as a
completely separate category of injury from loss of liberty, stating: "The
damages recoverable for loss of liberty for the period spent in a wrongful
confinement are separable from damages recoverable for such injuries as
physical harm, embarrassment, or emotional suffering; even absent such
other injuries, an award of several thousand dollars may be appropriate
simply for several hours' loss of liberty." (125) The court relies on an
earlier case in which it had held that, although juries are properly
instructed not to award "speculative damages," the trial court "should have
made it clear to the jury that it could award monetary damages the amount
necessarily arbitrary and unprovable for the intangibles which we have
referred to above." Id., quoting Raysor v. Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey, 768 F.2d 34, 39 (2d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1027
(1986). The court also relies extensively on tort cases ...

The defendants failed to credit the plaintiff properly for good time, even
though they had obtained a decision in prior litigation with him stating
the correct way of calculating it. As a result he spent six extra months
in prison.

The parties argue the case in terms of preclusion, but the court says that
the real question is whether the decision of the state court prescribing
how good time is to be calculated created a liberty interest in the
plaintiff's release date as determined thereby. It does. At 155: "Any
continued detention after the state has lost its lawful authority to hold a
prisoner deprives him of a liberty interest in freedom from restraint that
is protected from unlawful state deprivation by the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment." The federal court's job is not to reexamine the
state court's determination of state law (that would violate the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine!) but to determine whether the defendants correctly
applied the state court order. The defendants' claim that they did not
obey the state court's order because they thought it was wrong (even though
the state court adopted the position they put forward in the litigation)
does not impress the court. ...

The plaintiff sued to obtain the release of biological evidence for DNA
testing, alleging it would be exculpatory as to his criminal conviction.
His suit was, in effect, a challenge to the validity of his criminal
conviction that must be pursued via habeas corpus. Since he had already
lost a habeas proceeding on the subject, this action was properly dismissed
as a successive habeas petition. (That is an interesting application of
Heck and Preiser. The Heck rule bars federal suits in which success would
"necessarily imply" the invalidity of the state judgment on which
confinement is based. However, suits which do not directly challenge the
basis of confinement, but seek relief that would lead to another proceeding
which might or might not affect the basis of confinement, are generally not
barred. See, e.g., Dotson v. Wilkinson, 300 F.3d 661 (6th Cir. 2002)
(holding that a challenge to denial of parole eligibility, which if
successful would entitle the prisoner only to a parole hearing that could
go either way, is not barred by Heck). The court in this case does not
explain why the existence of a further contingency between success in
obtaining evidence for DNA testing and the ultimate invalidation ...

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's dismissal of
a suit against several parole officials, finding they were not entitled to
absolute immunity.

In 1990, Lance Dawson was convicted of Indiana criminal charges and placed
on probation for 3 years, with a suspended 6 year sentence. In 1992,
Dawson's probation officer filed a notice of probation violation, but a
hearing was never held.

On June 12, 2000, approximately ten years after being placed on probation
and eight years after the alleged violation, the State filed an amended
notice of probation violation. On October 23, 2000, Judge Newman revoked
Dawson's probation and imposed the six-year term of incarceration.

On July 18, 2001, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that Dawson's
probation revocation was improper as it occurred long after his term of
probation had expired. See: Dawson v. State, 751 NE.2d 812, 815 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2001). On remand, Judge Newman ordered Dawson's immediate release.
The judge's office faxed a copy of the appellate decision to the Indiana
Department of Corrections (DOC), but failed to send the release order.

As the wheels of Dawson's imminent release ostensibly were moving
forward, he remained in custody for another fourteen months. ...

The plaintiff allegedly was kept for three years beyond his sentence
expiration because he refused to sign an installment schedule agreement for
his unpaid fines.

The wardens of prisons in Virginia and West Virginia were not subject to
personal jurisdiction in D.C. on a Bivens claim, since the plaintiff was
never imprisoned there, the wardens weren't located there, and they
committed no acts there.

The District of Columbia was not the proper venue where all the relevant
events took place in Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The
convenience of parties and witnesses and the interests of justice supported
transfer to the Northern District of West Virginia. See: Zakiya v. United
States, 267 F.Supp.2d 47 (D.D.C. 2003).

Alonzo Echols, 48, is not Alonzo Eacholes, despite repeatedly telling
officers, jails, and courts this. In February of 2000, Echols was arrested
for felony battery on a warrant that should have been for Eacholes. His
release took 18 months, though Echols' attorney knew immediately of the
mistake. Echols sued Wyandotte ...

$49,500 Awarded To Florida Prisoner For Unconstitutional Removal Of Gain
Time Credits

Former Florida State prisoner Rogelio Ibarra's supervision time was
increased by the Florida Department of Correction (FDOC) after holding a
legislative change in incentive gain time retroactive. Although he should
have been discharged in 1988, Ibarra was violated ...

Doing "Katrina Time"

by Bob Williams

Last month, PLN's cover story addressed the terrors and tribulations faced by prisoners when Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans on August 29, 2005 -- not just the horrors of the storm, but also the brutality and abuse inflicted by ill-prepared and sadistic prison guards.

Unfortunately, for many prisoners the ordeal didn't end there. With court records lost or under water, evidence and witnesses scattered far and wide, and the New Orleans justice system in shambles, thousands of prisoners were held for lengthy periods of time without trials or past their release dates. Their odyssey became known as doing "Katrina time."

Over 6,000 prisoners who had been packed into the Orleans Parish Prison (OPP) were displaced as a result of Hurricane Katrina. By September 2, 2005, almost all of those prisoners had been removed from the flooded jail buildings; they were bused to 38 facilities across the state, including the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center, Jena Correctional Facility, Bossier Parish Maximum Security Jail, Lafayette Parish Correctional Center, and the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola. Another 2,000 prisoners were evacuated from surrounding areas.

Due to a complete lack of preparedness by OPP officials, during the evacuation the ...

On July 5, 2006, a jury awarded $21,800 to a California state prisoner after the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) miscalculated his good time/work time credits on his twelve year sentence.

Jorge Gallegos, a Mexican national, was sentenced to state prison in September 1995. With CDCR?s then-current credit ...