Sandknop v. Mo. Dep't of Corr.

• Decision Date: 05 August 2019
• Docket Number: No. 18-2807,18-2807
• Parties: Christopher SANDKNOP Plaintiff - Appellant v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Defendant Brian O’Connell, Individually and Official Capacity Defendant - Appellee Missouri Department of Corrections, Board of Probation and Parole Defendant Aaron Jarrett, Individually and Official Capacity Defendant - Appellee
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

932 F.3d 739

Christopher SANDKNOP Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Defendant

Brian O’Connell, Individually and Official Capacity Defendant - Appellee

Missouri Department of Corrections, Board of Probation and Parole Defendant

Aaron Jarrett, Individually and Official Capacity Defendant - Appellee

No. 18-2807

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 16, 2019
Filed: August 5, 2019

Christopher Sandknop, Pro Se, Christopher J. Schmidt, Barbara A. Smith, Bryan & Cave, Saint Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Ross Aaron Kaplan, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General's Office, Jefferson City, MO, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

ERICKSON, Circuit Judge.

Christopher Sandknop filed a pro se § 1983 claim against the Missouri Department of Corrections ("MDOC"), the warden of the Ozark Correctional Center ("OCC"), and a former probation and parole officer at the OCC, alleging that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty as a result of statements made by the former probation and parole officer to a local state court. The district court¹ concluded that the warden and the officer were entitled to absolute and qualified immunity and dismissed Sandknop’s suit.² Sandknop now appeals with the assistance of pro bono counsel. We affirm.

I. Background

On July 12, 2013, Christopher Sandknop pled guilty to driving while intoxicated. Sandknop had a number of prior convictions and was considered a "chronic offender" under section 577.001(5) of the Missouri Statutes Annotated. The state circuit judge sentenced Sandknop to a mandatory ten-year term of imprisonment. Notwithstanding the mandatory term, under Missouri law the court was authorized to suspend the sentence of a chronic offender to allow the offender to participate in a custodial substance abuse treatment program. See Mo. Stat. Ann. § 217.362(2). Armed with this authority, the state court suspended Sandknop’s sentence and ordered him to complete the substance abuse program.

A series of Missouri cases have addressed whether and to what extent offenders who successfully complete the substance abuse program are entitled to release on probation. The abuse treatment program created by the MDOC lasts for twelve months, even though the statute at issue allows the court to impose a sentence requiring the defendant to participate in an "institutional drug or alcohol treatment for a period of at least twelve and no more than twenty-four months, as well as a term of incarceration." Id. The statute further provides that when the defendant completes the program "the board of probation and parole shall advise the

932 F.3d 741

sentencing court of an offender’s probationary release date thirty days prior to release. If the court determines that probation is not appropriate the court may order the execution of the offender’s sentence." Id. at § 217.362(3). Despite the language of the statute, some trial courts in Missouri concluded that they were authorized to "retain jurisdiction" and order that an inmate could be held up to the twenty-four month maximum treatment period found in section 217.362(2). See Salm v. Mennemeyer, 423 S.W.3d 319, 320 (Mo. App. 2014) (describing trial court order purporting to retain jurisdiction under that section). The Missouri Court of Appeals held in Salm that section 217.362 did not authorize that approach. Id.

Sandknop completed the substance abuse treatment program after Salm was decided and attempted to secure his release. In response, the trial court entered an order "retaining jurisdiction" over Sandknop under the same theory that was ruled impermissible in Salm. Sandknop alleges that the court issued the order because a probation and parole officer at the OCC informed the court in an ex parte communication that it was entitled to do so, even though the opinion in Salm had warned the MDOC that its "court report investigations should no longer advise that section 217.362 allows trial courts to retain jurisdiction up to twenty-four months." Id. at 321 n.4.

Pursuant to the state...