Stein v. Ryan
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23027
9th Cir.2011Background
- Stein pleaded guilty in 1997 to attempted sexual contact with a minor; judge imposed lifetime probation and one year in jail, no appeal taken.
- In 2006 Stein’s probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to ten years; he did not appeal the sentence.
- In 2008 the Arizona Supreme Court in State v. Peek held lifetime probation was not authorized for Stein’s offense, and the maximum permitted period was five years.
- By 2009 the superior court vacated Stein’s sentence and discharged probation, releasing him after just over three years in prison.
- Stein filed suit in state court seeking damages against the State and Department employees for the time spent in prison under an allegedly illegal sentence; the district court dismissed the complaint and Stein appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty of department to review legality of sentencing | Stein claims department should verify sentencing legality. | Department lacks authority to review judicial sentencing orders. | Dismissed; no duty to review legality of sentences. |
| §1983 wrongful imprisonment due to illegal sentence | Imprisonment based on unlawful order violated rights. | Officials execute court orders; no duty to preemptively release. | Qualified immunity shields defendants; no clearly established right violated. |
| Due process and release timing after Peek | Due process required earlier release when illegality is clear. | Due process satisfied; vacatur by court, not executive review, triggered release. | No due process violation; no constitutional wrong by defendants. |
| Eighth Amendment claim for cruel and unusual punishment | Detention pending review violated Eighth Amendment. | Prison officials execute court orders; no deliberate indifference shown. | Eighth Amendment claim rejected; qualified immunity applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harris, 133 Ariz. 30, 648 P.2d 145 (Ariz.Ct.App.1982) (allocation of sentencing control among branches; review is judicial function)
- Peek (State v. Peek), 219 Ariz. 182, 195 P.3d 641 (Ariz. 2008) (holding lifetime probation not authorized for certain offenses; affects validity of sentence)
- Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350 (9th Cir.1985) (two-element test for §1983 claim: color of law and constitutional rights deprivation)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (qualified immunity framework for public officials)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (determinative standard for qualified immunity: rights clearly established)