Davis v. Hall
| Decision Date | 14 July 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-1343.,No. 02-3923.,No. 02-3924.,02-3923.,02-3924.,03-1343. |
| Citation | 375 F.3d 703 |
| Parties | Daryl L. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calzona HALL, Ex-Director, St. Louis County Department of Justice Services, in his individual capacity; Dora B. Schriro, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections, in her individual capacity; Robert A. Meechum, Lieutenant; Jacqueline D. Young; St. Louis County; Brian Goeke; Larry Wilson; Susan Martin; Stacy Breedon; John Prier; Travis Clyburn, Defendants, Barbara Knell; Rebecca Atterberry, Defendants-Appellants, Pat Roll, Defendant. Daryl L. Davis, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calzona Hall, Ex-Director, St. Louis County Department of Justice Services, in his individual capacity; Dora B. Schriro, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections, in her individual capacity; Robert A. Meechum, Lieutenant; Jacqueline D. Young; St. Louis County; Brian Goeke; Larry Wilson, Defendants, Susan Martin; Stacy Breedon; John Prier; Travis Clyburn, Defendants-Appellants, Barbara Knell; Rebecca Atterberry; Pat Roll, Defendants. Daryl L. Davis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Calzona Hall, Ex-Director, St. Louis County Department of Justice Services, in his individual capacity; Dora B. Schriro, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections, in her individual capacity; Robert A. Meechum, Lieutenant; Jacqueline D. Young; St. Louis County; Brian Goeke; Larry Wilson,; Susan Martin; Stacy Breedon; John Prier; Travis Clyburn; Barbara Knell; Rebecca Atterberry; Pat Roll, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Maureen C. Beekley, argued, Asst. Attorney General, St. Louis, MO (Denise Garrison McElvein, on the brief), for Appellants.
W. Bevis Schock, argued, St. Louis, MO, for Appellee Davis.
Robert E. Fox, Jr., argued, Clayton, MO, for Appellees C. Hall, et al.
Before RILEY, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
These interlocutory appeals follow the district court's disposition of the defendants' motions for summary judgment on Daryl Davis's § 1983 claims alleging due process violations in connection with his prolonged incarceration after he was ordered released. For the reasons stated below, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
In December of 1997, a jury convicted Daryl Davis of stealing $150 or more, a class C felony under Missouri law. The Missouri state court sentenced Davis as a prior offender and pronounced a seven-year term of imprisonment. He was transferred from county custody to the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections to serve out his sentence at the Missouri state correctional facility, Fulton Reception & Diagnostic Center ("Fulton"). However, in March of 1999, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed Davis's conviction and granted him a new trial. He entered into plea negotiations with the state prosecutor and agreed to enter an Alford plea to the stealing charge.2 The Missouri Department of Corrections received the Court of Appeals mandate and, therefore, had knowledge that Davis's conviction had been reversed and that he was to remain incarcerated pending a new trial. When Davis's conviction was reversed, he acquired pre-trial detainee status.
At the prosecuting attorney's request, the state court judge issued a writ to the Fulton facility to effectuate Davis's court appearance in order to enter a plea and to receive his new sentence. The writ commanded the superintendent of Fulton to bring Davis to the St. Louis County courthouse on April 22, 1999 and stated, "Be it further ordered that after said proceeding the defendant shall be returned forthwith to your custody."
The Department of Justice Services is a county agency and was charged with transporting Davis to the St. Louis County Courthouse. Davis was delivered without incident and, on April 22, 1999, entered an Alford plea. The judge imposed a one-year sentence with credit for time served. At this point, Davis had served approximately one and one-half years, and there were no other warrants or holds on him. The judge ordered that Davis be immediately released. The Judgment and Sentence Order stated, The form that accompanied Davis when he was transported from Fulton to the courthouse anticipated the possibility of his release and indicated that, in the event of escape or release, Fulton officials were to be notified immediately.
Despite the judge's order that Davis was to be released immediately, county officials placed Davis back into county jail to await transport back to Fulton. Meanwhile, Department of Justice Services employee/defendant Jacqueline Young completed a "Release Approval Report" on Davis. She entered the following notation on the report: Young was responsible for handling prisoners' paperwork and filed Davis's Judgment and Sentence Order in the county's files. She did not provide the Missouri Department of Corrections with a copy. Nor did she make an attempt to ensure that the Department of Justice Services returned a copy of the report to Fulton. Davis, however, personally retained a copy.
Davis remained incarcerated in the St. Louis County jail for four days before being transported back to Fulton. When the Department of Justice Services' transportation unit brought Davis back to Fulton, officers completed a "Certificate of Delivery" form. This form listed all the prisoners who were transported from Department of Justice Services custody to Fulton and provided blank spaces to list the prisoners' names and the sentences imposed. On the day that Davis was transported to Fulton, the Certificate of Delivery listed ten prisoners. Sentences were recorded for seven of those ten prisoners; Davis's sentence was not listed.
Moreover, by way of their stamped signatures, state employees/defendants Patricia Roll and Bryan Goeke attested to the following:
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above named prisoners were delivered this 26th day of April, 99, and were accompanied by the above named officer(s) and guard(s), together with a certified copy of the Judgment and Sentence in each case, stating the offense and number of years of commitment to the Department of Corrections, as set opposite their respective names.
(emphasis added). Similarly, by statute, a certified copy of Davis's Judgment and Sentence Order should have been delivered to Fulton officials. See Mo.Rev.Stat. 217.305(2) (); cf. id. § 546.600 (). Nevertheless, no one at Fulton ever received a copy of Davis's Judgment and Sentence Order.
The Certificate of Delivery and the absence of Davis's Judgment and Sentence Order were not the only mishandled pieces of information. A "court return form" should have accompanied Davis back to Fulton but did not. State employee/defendant Rebecca Atterberry, who was responsible for handling prisoners' paperwork at Fulton, testified that only 75-90% of prisoners who go out to court on writs come back with a court return form, notwithstanding the form's explicit directive to return the form with the prisoner. Specifically, the court return form provides:
After returning to Fulton, Davis repeatedly protested his continued incarceration but was ignored, met by indifference, or admonished for refusing to accept responsibility for his crime. On May 11, 1999, for example, Fulton transferred Davis to Farmington Treatment Center ("Farmington") to complete a behavior modification program designed to enable prisoners to integrate into society upon release. His offender management team at Farmington consisted of state employees/defendants Susan Martin, Stacy Breedon, and John Prier. Davis showed Martin his Judgment and Sentence Order when he arrived at Farmington. She asked Davis for a copy, but he refused to give his only copy to her, because it was the only proof he had that he was to be released.
Martin's treatment notes also reflect that Davis demanded to be released on several occasions. After several such demands, Davis's management team held a meeting with state employee/defendant Travis Clyburn, who was a probation officer. He attended the meeting in order to explain Davis's sentence to him, but he did not address Davis's concerns. Nor did he check Davis's records or ask to see the Judgment and Sentence Order. In fact, no one at the meeting asked to see the order even though Davis previously had shown it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Dist. of Columbia
...for a period of time, but concluding that the reasonableness of the eleven-hour overdetention was a jury question); Davis v. Hall , 375 F.3d 703, 718–19 (8th Cir. 2004) (concluding that the jury must determine if the plaintiff's fifty-seven day overdetention rose to the level of a constitut......
-
Barnes v. Dist. of D.C.
...being ordered released could work a violation of a prisoner's constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Davis v. Hall, 375 F.3d 703, 713 (8th Cir.2004). The Eighth Circuit has held that once a judge orders the release of a prisoner, any continued detention unlawfully deprives t......
-
Zachary Lee Church v. Anderson
...unlawful). "Officials are not liable for bad guesses in gray areas; they are liable for transgressing bright lines." Davis v. Hall , 375 F.3d 703, 712 (8th Cir. 2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Scott v. Baldwin , 720 F.3d 1034, 1036 (8th Cir. 2013). Moreover, as the Su......
-
Jr. v. Richardson
...incarcerative sentence has expired or otherwise.” Holder v. Town of Newton, 638 F.Supp.2d 150, 153 (D.N.H.2009) (citing Davis v. Hall, 375 F.3d 703, 714 (8th Cir.2004) and Barnes v. District of Columbia, 242 F.R.D. 113, 117 (D.D.C.2007)). “[T]he right of an accused to freedom pending trial ......
-
Davis v. Hall.
...Appeals Court CLAIMS Davis v. Hall, 375 F.3d 703 (8th Cir. 2004). A former state inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials, alleging due process violations in connection with his prolonged incarceration after he was ordered released. The district court granted final ju......
-
Davis v. Hall.
...Appeals Court FALSE IMPRISONMENT Davis v. Hall, 375 F.3d 703 (8th Cir. 2004). A former state inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials, alleging due process violations in connection with his prolonged incarceration after he was ordered released. The district court gran......
-
Davis v. Hall.
...Appeals Court QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Davis v. Hall, 375 F.3d 703 (8th Cir. 2004). A former state inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials, alleging due process violations in connection with his prolonged incarceration after he was ordered released. The district court gran......
-
Davis v. Hall.
...Appeals Court TIMELY RELEASE Davis v. Hall, 375 F.3d 703 (8th Cir. 2004). A former state inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials, alleging due process violations in connection with his prolonged incarceration after he was ordered released. The district court granted ......