32. Pretrial detention.

U.S. Appeals Court

BAIL

Dobrek v. Phelan, 419 F.3d 259 (3rd Cir. 2005). A commercial bail bondsman brought an action against the clerk of a state superior court, contending that the clerk wrongfully removed his name from the bail bondsman registry following the discharge of his bail bond debts in a chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. The district court dismissed the action and the bail bondsman appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the judgments against the commercial bail bondsman which arose from bond debts were "forfeitures," excepted from discharge in a chapter 7 proceeding. The court noted that the judgments against the bondsman arose from the failure of criminal defendants to appear in court and the bondsman's nonperformance of his duty to produce those defendants. (New Jersey)

U.S. Appeals Court

SUPERVISION

STAFFING

FAILURE TO PROTECT

Fisher v. Lovejoy, 414 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 2005). A pretrial detainee brought a pro se [section] 1983 Fourteenth Amendment action against a corrections officer, alleging that the officer failed to protect the detainee from assault by other inmates of the facility. The district court entered summary judgment for the officer and the detainee appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court held that the fact that the officer witnessed the stabbing of the detainee by another inmate did not render the officer deliberately indifferent to a second assault on the detainee that was perpetrated minutes later by several inmates. The court noted that the officer entered the room where the stabbing had occurred and attempted to restore order, found and confiscated a knife near the spot where he had observed the stabbing, which permitted the inference that the first assailant was unarmed. The officer did not identify the inmates who mounted the second attack as participants in the first attack. The court held that the officer reasonably responded when he witnessed the stabbing of the detainee, precluding liability. At the time of the assaults, the officer had been assigned to "cross-watch" two separate housing units, one of which housed 48 inmates. He was required to walk back and forth between the two units' dayrooms. When the first assault began the victim ran toward the locked dayroom door and saw the officer outside. He pushed an intercom button near the door and summoned help. The officer immediately called for assistance but was not able to enter the dayroom until it was unlocked by a central control post. By the time the door opened, approximately twenty officers were waiting to enter. (Cook County Department of Corrections)

U.S. Appeals Court

RELEASE

BAIL

Golberg v. Hennepin County, 417 F.3d 808 (8th Cir. 2005). A detainee brought a civil rights action against a sheriff and county, alleging that she was subjected to an excessive delay in releasing her from custody. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the detainee appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The detainee had appeared in court in response to a felony fraud charge. The court continued the proceeding but ordered the detainee to be booked at the detention center before her release. When detention center officials discovered that the detainee had two outstanding warrants they required her to post bail before she could be released. As a result, she remained in custody for 32 hours, including ten hours after her father posted the required bail. The court noted that the detainee conceded that the officials had probable cause to detain her after the outstanding warrants were discovered. The appeals court held that the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process analysis applied to the constitutionality of the delayed release, and that the failure to process the detainee more rapidly did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. The court found that a sign advising detainees that completing their paperwork might take "more than eight hours" did not show reckless disregard. The court held that the county could not be liable under [section] 1983 for adopting administrative procedures that allegedly slowed the bail posting and release process, absent a showing that the procedures violated federal law on their face or were intended to deprive detainees of their constitutional rights. (Hennepin County Adult Detention Center, Minnesota)

U.S. District Court

USE OF FORCE

PRE-SENTENCE DETENTION

Jeanty v. County of Orange, 379 F.Supp.2d 533 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). A county jail inmate whose arm was broken in an altercation with corrections officers sued the officers and the county, alleging excessive use of force The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in part, and denied it in part. The court held that summary judgment was precluded by fact issues as to whether excessive force was applied when the officers allegedly beat the prisoner in his cell to the point of breaking his arm, and wantonly ignored his cries of pain and pleas that they desist. The court also found that summary judgment was precluded by issues of fact as to whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. According to the court, the conviction of the inmate for assaulting an officer, arising out of the same incident, did not preclude the inmate's claim. The court held that the Eighth Amendment, not the Fourteenth Amendment, applied to this action because the inmate had been convicted of arson and was awaiting sentencing. (Orange County Jail, New York)

U.S. District Court

FAILURE TO PROTECT

Little v. Shelby County, Tenn., 384 F.Supp.2d 1169 (W.D.Tenn. 2005). An inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against a county and sheriff, alleging that he had been raped in jail in violation of his Eighth Amendment...