2. Administration.

U.S. Appeals Court

RECORDS

Luckes v. County of Hennepin, 415 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2005). An arrestee brought a [section] 1983 action against a county and a sheriff related to his 24-hour detention after his arrest. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the arrestee appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the arrestee's due process rights were not violated by his twenty-four hour detention following his arrest for an outstanding bench warrant, since the length of the detention did not shock the conscience and the arrestee did not complain of any mistreatment by jail staff. The arrestee had failed to pay fines for two traffic citations and bench warrants had been issued. His license had also been suspended. He was stopped and cited for driving without a license and then he was arrested pursuant to the bench warrants. He was placed in a holding cell, where an officer told him that he had "picked the worst day to be here" because the jail had just activated a new computerized jail management system and problems were encountered. A sign posted in the jail asked inmates to "be patient" and that it "may take more than eight hours" to process their paperwork. During his 24-hour detention the arrestee was repeatedly placed in overcrowded cells with persons arrested for crimes that were significantly more violent in nature than failure to pay traffic fines. He endured threats and intimidation from other inmates, as well as mockery prompted by his speech impediment. (Hennepin County Adult Detention Center, Minnesota)

U.S. District Court

APA- Administrative Procedures Act

Moss v. Apker, 376 F.Supp.2d 416 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). A prisoner brought a habeas corpus action to challenge the application of the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policy that categorically restricted prisoner transfers to community corrections centers (CCCs) to the last ten percent of their sentences, not to exceed six months. The district court denied the petition. The court held that the challenge to an earlier version of the policy was mooted, and that the new policy complied with the notice and comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The court found that the BOP reasonably interpreted the statutes as giving it discretion to limit transfers to a statutory minimum period. The court found that the retroactive application of the policy did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. (Federal Correctional...