Alston v. Read, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24741

Alston was convicted of robbery in 1991 and later of two drug offenses in 1997; court ordered concurrent sentences for the drug counts, but the December 10, 1997 order stated concurrent treatment only within that case and not with the robbery conviction, and DPS did not receive that order.
DPS historically treated sentences from different times as concurrent unless the later judgment stated otherwise, contrary to Hawaii law requiring consecutive terms unless concurrent terms are ordered.
In 2005 a new DPS policy changed treatment to consecutive terms for different-crime sentences unless the judgment said concurrent; this prompted retroactive recalculation and a shifted release date for Alston.
In June 2007, Simmons informed Alston that his sentence had been recalculated; his new maximum release date extended to November 2011, prompting further letters from Alston.
Alston filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging overdetention and due process and Eighth Amendment violations; the district court granted summary judgment on state-law claims but denied qualified immunity on the federal claims, leading to this interlocutory appeal.
The issue before the Ninth Circuit is whether Read and Simmons had a clearly established duty to seek out original court records to verify Alston’s sentence calculations; the court ultimately holds they did not have such a duty under the circumstances and are entitled to qualified immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Read and Simmons violated clearly established rights by not reviewing original court records	Alston argues duty to obtain original courthouse files to correct overdetention	Read/Simmons relied on institutional file and state-law calculations; no duty to seek extra records	No clearly established duty; qualified immunity protected Read and Simmons

Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350 (9th Cir. 1985 (en banc)) (overdetention due to erroneous calculation after notice; not investigating alone)
Alexander v. Perrill, 916 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1990) (summary judgment denied where prisoner provided verified documents; duty to investigate may exist)
Stein v. Ryan, 662 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2011) (prison officials may rely on court documents received; authority to execute orders)
Moran v. Washington, 147 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 1998) (appeal jurisdiction on qualified-immunity issue when district court erred in applying law)
Johnson v. Gomez, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) (limits on reviewing pre-trial records; final decision requirement)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified-immunity inquiry; not required to follow sequential order)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (modifies Saucier by allowing flexibility in order of the two steps)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (clearly established rights; specificity required)
Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2009) (right to be free from wrongful incarceration; specificity of warning to officials)