One Extra Day in Prison Not Cognizable in Suit
One Extra Day in Prison Not Cognizable in Suit
The U.S. District Court for the Eighth Circuit upheld a decision of a Missouri federal district court, affirming summary judgment against a former prisoner who had alleged he was improperly incarcerated in prison one day longer than he was supposed to be. The court also upheld summary judgment on numerous other claims against the arresting officers, a parole officer, and a public defender.
Travis Wayne Gibson had been arrested numerous times for violating an Order of Protection against his former wife. Many times, he would plead guilty, receive probation or a suspended sentence, and then re-violate the protection order.
On April 9, 2008, Gibson was arrested for threatening his ex-wife and violating the protection order. Gibson claimed he was there to pick up his children for visitation. Gibson was given probation and then arrested twice more for violating the protection order. After his final arrest, the court revoked his probation and sentenced him to three years in prison.
While incarcerated, Gibson filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea to the April 9, 2008 arrest that resulted in the probation sentence. After a hearing on December 1, 2009, a Stoddard County judge granted the motion and ordered Gibson released. Gibson was released the next day after a Louisiana detainer hold was removed.
Gibson later sued for arrest without probable cause, claiming he had contact with his ex-wife only in order to pick up his kids for legal visitation. He also sued his public defender for advising him to plead guilty, his probation officer for the probation violation, and the jail for not releasing him on the day the judge ordered.
The district court granted the defendants summary judgment and dismissed the suit. Gibson appealed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed on all counts. The appellate court held that the arresting officers were not required to conduct a "mini-trial" prior to arresting a suspect for violating the plain terms of a protection order, and they called Gibson's claims against the probation officer and public defender "far-fetched.
As for the extra day Gibson was forced to remain in jail, the court said that under the circumstances presented, there was no evidence the sheriff was indifferent. "It was reasonable for Sheriff Hefner to hold plaintiff for the twenty-eight hour period at issue in light of the… felony charges pending in Louisiana," the court wrote. See: Gibson v. Cook, 764 F.3d 810 (8th Cir. Mo. 2014).
Related legal case
Gibson v. Cook
| Year | 2014 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 764 F.3d 810 (8th Cir. Mo. 2014) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |