Charles Russell v. Hennepin County

hand, if transaction was the the other On RUSSELL, Appellant, Charles purposes for of business

sale 2101(b)(1) Act notice was a WARN § but (and Burnsides required, then nonetheless impose the notice obli- regulations)

the COUNTY; HENNEPIN Sheriff Patrick seller, closing if or plant the on the gation McGowan; Deputy Michele Chief sale, at or before the layoff occurred mass Smolley; Merkel; Inspector Thomas plant closing if buyer, but Inspector and Former Richard Esten sale, be- layoff occurred after mass individually, sen, officially Appel party who buyer then was cause lees. actually the decision made 04-3922. No. an employees suffer

requisite number employment loss. Appeals, Court of United States Eighth Circuit.

Here, sold plant Tree was the Marked concern, buyer contin- going as a 23, 2005. Submitted: June uninterrupted, the same operations, ued Therefore, transaction was facility. Aug. Filed: of the purposes the sale a business 2101(b)(1), § which means

exclusion in employees “shall be plant’s of the

each purchaser employee of the

considered date of

immediately after effective buyer not shut down The did

sale.” closing” “plant no

facility, so there was 2101(a)(2). The meaning §of

within forty-four immediately

buyer hired which means sixty-eight employees,

plant’s layoff’ “mass within the no

there was 2101(a)(3). Accordingly, no

meaning §of required notice under Act

WARN 2102(a), court properly

§ the district dismissing the summary judgment

granted Act claims.

plaintiffs’ WARN of the district court

affirmed. Colton, argued, Minneapolis, M.

Seth MN, appellant. for Beitz, argued, Ann Bunker Minne- Toni MN, appellee. apolis, MELLOY, HEANEY Before GRUENDER, Judges. Circuit GRUENDER, Judge. Circuit brought against suit Charles Russell McGowan, Deputy Chief Sheriff Patrick Inspector Thomas Smolley, Michele Merk- el, Inspector Richard and former Esten- sen, capaci- official their individual and ties, County, Hennepin Minnesota (collectively County”), alleging six- “the Hennepin day prolonged detention at (“ADC”) County Adult Detention Center the Fourth and Fourteenth violated to the United States Consti- Amendments § under 42 1983 and Article tution U.S.C. I, the Minnesota Constitu- Section tion, imprisonment and constituted false tort law. district under Minnesota for granted County’s motion court1 § on summary judgment claim ju- supplemental to exercise and declined remaining state claims. over the risdiction court’s appeals from the district summary judgment granting order § For rea- County 1983 claim. below, affirm the dis- sons discussed we summary order.2 trict court’s

I. BACKGROUND Sep- Russell was arrested Charles felony offense of 2000 for tember in violation of threats making terroristic 609.713, § 1. After Rus- subd. MinmStat. deny with the case. We Magnuson, consideration Paul United 1. The Honorable S. Judge we affirm for the District of Minne- as moot because States District motion strike summary judg- sota. district court's order of to the matter ment without reference Appellees to Strike Portions filed Motion the motion. February Appellant’s Brief. On taking an order this motion the Court entered (“SIP”) a plea Subject sell entered of not guilty, in Process computer- Fourth District set Judicial Court bail at system, Judge ized records which reflected $10,000 conditional and no Hartigan’s release presentenee order for a investi- According victim. contact with the gation report and that Russell’s case was (ICR) County’s In-Custody Quick Records referred to probation department. Reference Guide: The court inmate tracking uses the sheet and the SIP records to communicate to the

A granted conditional is to some status of an inmate after each they inmates if it determined that do hearing. change-of-plea hearing, After the significant pose threat to the com- however, tracking neither inmate there is a munity and substantial likeli- nor sheet his SIP records indicated that person will appear hood that the at fu- to be immediately. was released dates. ture Court Conditional releases granted in the are most often Court Pursuant “all policy, persons on the room and documented inmate’s legally ... entitled to release shall be Tracking Sheet. Court cessed and as expeditiously released Russell, however, post did not bail and ... possible [and] confinement shall con- remained an inmate at the ADC. only long necessary tinue so as is to meet the demands of orderly and efficient oper- 9, 2000, Thursday,

On November Russell end, ation.” To this “Court per- Services appeared Judge Hartigan before Bruce sonnel must interview the prior inmates plea guilty. and entered a The terms of [a conditional] release.”3 During this plea agreement his allowed Russell to be meeting, a probation officer and in- the conditionally released without bail while mate review the conditions of the inmate’s awaiting imposition of a the sentence. Af- At release. the meeting, conclusion the ter he accepted plea guilty, Russell’s probation the officer must inform the ADC Judge Hartigan ordered to cooper- Russell occurred, the meeting that has that ate with probation department in the inmate is aware of the conditions of his presentence investigation creation of a re- release and ready that he is port him, release. and then told ‘You will be out. The ADC Records then Unit goYou commences over to Probation and talk to them the ADC’s processing administrative go nec- everything over and then five or six essary for a final release. weeks from now we will give be able to you a stay imposition[.]” progress of an inmate’s conditional

Consistent with the plea terms of the release is by monitored the Records Unit. agreement Judge Hartigan’s require- an Once inmate to a conditional ment that probation Russell meet with the court, release returns his file is department “go everything,” over Judge placed in a designated location within the Hartigan’s courtroom deputy recorded a to be probation accessed de- conditional in In- partment “ADC staff. probation If a officer does mate Tracking Sheet.” sign Russell’s condi- manner, timely inmate out in a tional-release status was also in recorded paperwork the inmate’s placed is in adopt parties' 3. We practice using probation department auspices falls under the specific appellation "probation department” County. or the Russell did not rather appear than Court probation Services. It would sue probation officer or the de- probation department partment allege falls under probation nor did he that the auspices event, of the district department court. responsible for his there is no evidence in the record will, also filed other inmate apparently Russell file. Records Unit staff daily” “check basis, attempt daily contact made informal daily request forms and on the appropriate or department guards regarding his probation inquiries of the re- clarify situation. the inmate’s judge to lease. are documented generally efforts These accounts, Monday, By all November do not “post it” notes that

informally with day 2000 was the first available business inmate’s permanent of the part become timely meeting for a between Russell and file.4 meeting This probation required officer. hearing, approximately at 3:40 After the not, however, Monday occur on did to the ADC. Russell returned p.m., Finally, Tuesday. apparently on ad- later, began hours About two inmate, vice of a fellow Russell contacted Consistent ask about release. Tuesday, attorney November deputies duty policy, housing inquiries must be told produce unable to records re- ADC is request writing on an inmate submitted daily flecting its efforts check Russell’s form, request his first inmate form. On However, approximately at 11:00 status. 10,5 Russell Friday, November dated 15, 2000, Wednesday, a.m. on November wrote, custody yes- “I was released Schwantz, Judge Hartigan faxed to Dottie you terday, I’m still confined. Could and Coordinator, Custody a an Records ADC why I’m procedure, find out what Modification of or- Sentence/Commitment November languishing here[?]” The still stating der “Defendant should be that a request form reflects 10 inmate NBR with no contact with the victim rath- housing deputy promptly [Rus- “talked er than CR.”6 The released Russell process.” explained and] sell receiving three after less than hours form, request inmate re- In his other written order. 2000, 11, Rus- Saturday, November ceived release, ap- to his Russell Subsequent wrote, “I seek information hereby sell probation met with a officer for parently My custody. case my release from about February presentence interview. On his p.m. Thursday at 4 was resolved about 22, 2001, Russell to a the court sentenced explana- I’m without still confined a stay with 53- imposition of sentence procrasti- or What’s the tion information. the condi- day term at the ADC one of Novem- According nation about?” days’ given 53 credit tions. He form, Deputy 11 T. request inmate ber time for the entire against that sentence to Russell he explained Bush spent at ADC. signed by Probation.” [out] to be “need[ed] According release. argue CR conditional point, appears to means 4. At Russell one records, Johnson, pro- permanent his records caused ADC custodian of the lack of Donald J. however, not, put longed does detention. He conditional re- personnel understand a tempo- his forth causal connection between probation will officer lease to mean that rary prolonged ADC's fail- detention and the to discuss the terms meet with the inmate permanent can we keep records nor ure understanding is consistent This release. decipher any. meeting After inmate’s probation has occurred with a officer Friday, closed No- 5. The state court was necessary completed probation officer has 10, Veteran’s 2000 observance of vember paperwork, will commence the Records Unit Day. processing. the final release an re- shorthand for unconditional NBR is required. abbreviation lease with no bail The 846 brought against ing plaintiff then this suit

Russell that a a municipal establish County Hennepin and four current and or a deprivation custom that caused county Further, in their former officials individual of rights). his constitutional capacities.7 In complaint, and official “[m]unicipal officials have policy- who final alleged that actions, custom making authority by may, their detention in caused his violation subject government to Section 1983 of the Fourth Fourteenth Amend- liability.” Angarita County, Louis St. ments to the United States Constitution. 1537, (8th Cir.1992) (citing 981 F.2d County against He also claims asserted 112, St. v. Praprotnik, Louis 485 U.S. I, violating Article Section 10 of the 121-22, 108 S.Ct. 99 L.Ed.2d 107 Constitution and for Minnesota false im- (1988)). Before a municipality can be held prisonment. argued in a defendants liable, however, there must be an uncon summary judgment motion for that Rus- act by municipal stitutional employee. a deprivation sell did not suffer of constitu- Glenwood, Avalos v. identify tional failed to rights, unconsti- (8th Cir.2004). Generally, prolonged tutional or custom and could not beyond detention the term authorized prove County policy that a unlawfully law deprives prisoner of longed response rights protected process under the due summary judgment, motion for defendants’ clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. agreed to dismiss three of the four Herman, Slone v. while pursuing individuals his claims Cir.1993). However, a municipality is not defendants, against remaining Henne- negligent liable for the acts its employ pin County and Sheriff McGowan. The Williams, ees. See Daniels v. 474 U.S. granted district County’s court sum- 327, 330-31, 662, 106 S.Ct. 88 L.Ed.2d 662 motion, mary judgment judgment entered (1986) (holding that negligence does not defendants, in favor of the dismissed the give § rise to a 1983 claim an based on § 1983 claim and sup- declined exercise violation); alleged process due see also plemental jurisdiction over the state law Board County Bryan Comm’rs of of claims. Brown, County 397, 405, v. 520 U.S. 117 (1997) 1382, S.Ct. 137 (“[Rig L.Ed.2d 626. II. DISCUSSION orous standards of culpability and causa municipality may A be § liable un tion 1983 [for must be applied claim] § der 1983 when official municipal poli to ensure that the municipality is not held cy or custom caused a violation of a plain liable for solely of employ actions its ee.”). process tiffs substantive due rights. Though it is difficult to ascertain 669, Hayes v. County, Faulkner 388 F.3d the exact basis for claim Russell’s of mu (8th Cir.2004); City 674 see also Can nicipal liability, appears he to argue that of Harris, 378, 389-91, ton v. 489 U.S. policy 109 ADC is unconstitutional on its face (1989) 1197, S.Ct. 103 412 and, L.Ed.2d (requir- alternatively, that ADC policy or the law, county Under Minnesota prolonged responsible sheriff his detention or were county and responsibility board share implementing challenged for the for ADC operation Therefore, county jail. any of See against Minn.Stat. claims Sheriff McGow- 387.11, end, §§ 641.01. To this capacity an in his individual are without mer- Conlee, brings against 1164, claims Clay Sheriff McGowan in his it. See 1169-70 (8th Cir.1987). Further, capacities. individual and official He does Russell has aban- not, however, allege appeal Sheriff § that McGowan or doned against 1983 claim party appeal directly other Smolley, this caused Merkel and Estensen. sues of material fact and the defendants policy- failing of follow custom judgment are entitled to as matter of prolonged caused his Cloud, law. See Scheeler v. St. judgment to the summary granting Cir.2005). not, are F.3d We that court concluded County, the district however, court’s rea- limited district processed Russell personnel properly affirm soning may grant sum- and ADC on his court records based any ground supported mary of inmates sub- monitoring regarding Labs., Fed. by the record. Gamradt v. The records release. ject conditional (8th Cir.2004). Inc., 416, 419 time of Rus- the ADC at the available to record, on our review of the we hold Based subject to show that he was detention sell’s deliberately is not indif- that ADC infor- Requests release. a conditional ferent to constitutional con- were answered mation made release, subject to victed felons conditional Judge Harti- with promptly. Consistent to present that Russell has failed material change-of-plea at Russell’s gan’s oral order upon jury evidence reasonable which explained to Rus- hearing, personnel find that ADC could meet first had to sell longed detention and that Russell has receiving Upon probation department. present any supporting failed evidence order of re- Judge Hartigan’s amended claim that the ADC has a custom of release, Rus- eliminating conditional lease violating regarding its moni- policies immediately dis- processed sell subject to conditional toring inmates custody. The district charged from ADC release. concluded, facts, these based on court the re- prolonged detention was argu We first address Russell’s ADC and the of “confusion between sult policy regarding the moni ment County, No. Hennepin Russell v. court.” toring of inmates to conditional 03-4889, slip at 6 op. 2004 WL indifferent deliberately to con (D.Minn. 2004). basis, On this Oct. rights because victed felons’ constitutional district court held that Russell’s policies expedite “the lack of did not rise to constitutional detention ‘policy’ “A release. process” conditional violation. of a ‘deliberate choice follow course is among ... various alter grant court’s of action made We review district novo, by responsi applying the the official officials summary judgment de natives establishing final law] state [under as the district court. Wat- ble same standard (8th in Jones, subject matter policy respect 1165-66 Cir. v. 980 F.2d son ” (8th 1992) (“In at 674 Hayes, 388 F.3d reviewing question.’ decision of the dis- Cir.2004) City (quoting Pembaur v. Cin summary judgment, we grant trict court to 469, 483-84, cinnati, 106 475 S.Ct. as the U.S. apply must the same strict standard (1986)). 1292, A policy 452 is court; therefore, de 89 L.Ed.2d our review is district Hall, deliberately con novo.”); person’s indifferent to a v. F.3d see also Davis 375 inadequacy is (8th Cir.2004) when its 703, rights rec- (reviewing 711 stitutional in likely to result in a most obvious and summary light both ord deprivation rights. alleged af- constitutional non-moving party favorable to Co., Knapheide Equip. v. Truck Spencer fording him all reasonable inferences Cir.1999). (8th record). 902, Howev F.3d 906 grant 183 drawn from er, an inade County policy address summary intended judgment in favor in- deliberately also cannot then be genuine quacy if no is- appropriate there are 848 inadequacy. ly likely

different Liebe v. to cause his prolonged detention. (8th Cir.1998). Norton, 574, 157 579 Kluck, F.3d Kelly See Shrum ex rel. v. 249 F.3d (8th policy may 773, Cir.2001) very While ADC be the 779-80 (requiring a monitoring daily means of prog- higher best standard of causation because of ress of convicted felons slated for stringent condi- standard of fault for munici- release, it policy tional reflects deliberate pal liability). end, To this Russell argues by in timely the ADC to assist policy dis- regarding the monitoring charge of those inmates. subject of inmates to conditional release moving was the force behind his prolonged any Russell also has not offered evi- disagree. We County dence that the any had notice of alleged inadequacy in policy or that “Municipalities cannot be held policy’s alleged inadequacy pat- was so § liable under 1983 ... pur ‘unless action ently County obvious that the should have suant to municipal policy official of some ” known a constitutional violation would re- nature caused a constitutional tort.’ Indeed, sult. there is no evidence that the Minnetonka, City Kuha v. 590, 365 F.3d challenged policy impermissibly shirks re- (8th Cir.2003) Monell, 603 (quoting sponsibility for the in- administration of 691, 2018). U.S. at 98 S.Ct. There is no mates, 674, Hayes, 388 F.3d at allows too evidence in the record supporting Russell’s many detentions, prolonged Young see allegation that ADC policy was the moving Rock, Little force behind his prolonged detention. In Cir.2001), or otherwise exhibits a deliber- deed, worst, at his detention of six addi ate indifference to the constitutional days tional resulted not from the execution felon, Canton, of a convicted see 489 U.S. of ADC but from the failure to at Therefore, 109 S.Ct. 1197. Rus- assiduously follow the See argument sell’s that ADC is inade- Mensey, Williams v. quate to timely ensure the conditional re- (8th Cir.1986) (affirming judgment as a lease of inmates is without merit. matter of law because the correctional offi alleged cers’ misconduct in carrying out an argues in the alternative order, official’s itself, and not the order detention was was the cause of the constitutional depriva personnel following re tion). single This instance of allegedly garding the monitoring of inmates failing to follow official policy may rise to to conditional release. inquiry first “[0]ur the level of negligence. not, It does how alleging case municipal liability un ever, suffice to establish causation as re § question der 1983is the whether there is quired to advance a claim of municipal a direct causal link between a municipal liability § under 1983. Wilson v. Law policy or custom alleged constitu (8th rence County, 946, 955 Cir. Canton, deprivation.” tional 489 U.S. at 2001) Daniels, (citing 334, 474 U.S. at 106 385, 109 S.Ct. 1197. requires plain This a 662, S.Ct. proposition for the that “protec tiff to that municipal show policy was tions of the Due Process Clause are not moving “the force [behind] constitu triggered by negligence”). tional violation.” Mettler v. Whitledge, 165 (8th 1197, Cir.1999) F.3d 1204 (quoting We also note that the failure of individu- Department Servs., Monell v. Social 436 al County employees comply to fully with of 658, 694, 2018, U.S. 98 S.Ct. 56 L.Ed.2d policy ADC is not the basis of Russell’s (1978)). 611 Accordingly, Russell such, must claim. As his reliance on Davis v. show that policy high- caused or was There, Hall is inapposite. prison certain

849 (8th Cir.1994) (“Li- 53, 57 County, 36 F.3d a written order of disregard for officials’ ability for unconstitutional custom or incarcera- prolonged in a resulted single ... arise from a usage cannot conclud- days. Davis Court of 57 tion act.”), County’s knowledge of such responsible for that those individuals ed conduct, City, P.H. v. Dist. Kansas Sch. not incarceration were prolonged Davis’s of (8th (“[A Cir.2001) 653, gov- F.3d 265 659 immunity. 375 F.3d qualified entitled may not found to entity] ernmental be case, plaintiff in Unlike this at 720. deliberately have been indifferent to or to prolonged that his did not claim Davis it tacitly authorized conduct of have which by prison directly caused was incarceration unaware.”), or that of was this custom Davis, unlike Rus- custom. And policy or failing policy to follow ADC caused any county employ- not claim that sell does detention, see v. Forrest prolonged Tilson for his individually responsible is ee (8th 802, F.3d City Dept., Police 28 807-08 longed detention. Cir.1994). most, a At the record shows appears argue Russell also policy. from an official single deviation to follow failing custom of that the rise of might give this to a claim While “A prolonged caused policy negligence, single failing a instance of of munici practice custom a municipal is insufficient to es- follow official by that is not authorized writ officials pal violating tablish custom law, permanent which is ‘so ten but Ballwin, City 931 See Wedemeier v. ... force [have] (8th Cir.1991) (“[A] well-settled de- single F.2d ” Pagedale, v. Harris law.’ written, from a official does viation Cir.1987) (8th (quoting n. 7 F.2d conflicting usage.”). custom or prove 2018). Monell, 98 S.Ct. 436 U.S. at summary judgment on Rus- Accordingly, violation re failing a constitutional custom To establish claim that sell’s custom, plaintiff prolonged such a caused his sulting follow ADC injury alleged that was appropriate. detention is must show by employees engaging municipal caused every After benefit of giving pattern of widespread persistent in a very and a generous inference reasonable municipal misconduct unconstitutional arguments, con- interpretation of his we in deliberately were either policymakers summary judgment proper- clude that was tacitly authorized. Larson to or different ly granted. documents available Court Miller, 1446, 1453 Cir. prolonged of Russell’s the ADC at the time (en banc). 1996) the context of this subject to that he detention recorded therefore, produce must litigation, regard- ADC policy conditional release. that, prolonged of his at the time evidence subject to monitoring of inmates ing detention, widespread and there awas steps reflects deliberate conditional release failure to follow relevant persistent by the to balance constitutional county policymaker policy, protec- some with the prisoners of those and was general public. failure either was aware this of their victims tion tacitly ap to or deliberately produce indifferent failed to evidence Russell has pro and that his which is not unconstitu- policy, of such conduct this proved face, cus caused his detention was this tional its longed Further, he not offered policy. to ADC Id. has failing follow detention. tom establishing a of fail- any a custom evidence of evidence has offered we policy. Because failing ing to to follow pattern of follow widespread a to raise has failed conclude that Russell v. Jackson daily” policy, McGautha “check dispute link the existence between municipal policy material factual violation). that caused his constitutional policy of a or custom detention, we need not longed consider majority parse would Russell’s days six in whether the additional the cus- claim questions into about discrete wheth- rises to the a tody of the ADC level of er the policy violated conditional- injury. See Bechtel City constitutional v. release inmates’ constitutional rights, and (8th Cir.2001). Belton, whether staff customarily the ADC disre-

garded procedures ADC release re- with spect to such inmates’ constitutional rights. III. CONCLUSION To compartmentalize argument present any Russell failed to evidence in this fashion misses point because regarding monitoring that ADC Russell was not a in- conditional-release subject to conditional inmates mate. The ADC has a detailed written its face or unconstitutional on otherwise policy with respect the processing of Further, prolonged caused his inmates conditional release. any he failed to present evidence of However, it for investigating has no violating custom of Accord- possible administrative errors related to above, ingly, for discussed the reasons we an inmate’s release. Under these circum- affirm grant the district court’s of sum- stances, question is not poli- whether a mary favor County. in of the cy in writing through or cus- —established followed,

tom—is but whether the failure HEANEY, Judge, dissenting. Circuit any policy have with respect matter evidences deliberate indifference to I respectfully dissent. un- Russell was of an inmate. I believe it does. lawfully detained due administrative er- Judge Hartigan’s required order majority ror. The asserts that Russell Charles Russell promptly. be released It prevail cannot on his claim that Hennepin stated: (“the County County”) deprived him of a I don’t you want have contact constitutionally protected right because with [the because I don’t victim] want to “failed to material present upon evidence you throw jail, in which is I what will jury which a reasonable could find that have to going do. are We to order caused his deten- presentence investigation you are tion.” I disagree. Ante at Rus- going to cooperate that.... You sell jail days was held in for six after go will be out. You over to Probation Judge released, him Hartigan ordered in and talk go to them and everything over spite daily, repeated requests of Russell’s and then five or six weeks from now we investigate County unjustified you will be give stay able to imposi- detention, changed; nothing day each Rus- just tion like [the defendant’s attorney] held, sell complained being yet about each you wants and negotiated for day unjustifiedly he remained incarcerat- you.... And so what I that’s want to do. Any policy ed. that leads to permits I put don’t want to have to you jail. in gives result rise to an inference that (T. Felony Basis, Plea and Factual State there has been an unconstitutional depri- Russell, Dist. Minn. Ct. No. 00062767at liberty. vation of one’s Accord Ricketts v. added)). (emphasis 5-6 Columbia, 779-80 Cir.1994) §in (noting that 1983 actions a The court deputy erred reporting to jury must decide whether there is a causal ADC that Russell’s release was to be report Judge Hartigan’s ous of order. meeting his on first conditioned only days Russell Russell was released six later November On bation. ADC, lawyer, not the contact- error to the attention ADC because his called the being two confined. ed the court. hours staff within attempt no to contact the made

The staff Hayes In the case of Faulkner recent Russell should to determine whether court (8th Cir.2004), County, F.3d 669 our until after immediately released or held be was a circum- court faced with similar Instead, probation officer. met with plaintiff the held in Hayes, stance. was “green fill out a told Russell to ADC staff jail period going for a to before Form) (an Request stating Inmate slip” proper court. the authorities He notified Russell as directed and complaint. did detention, jail to of the extended which the green slip on November completed it was not responded administrator that wrote, custody “I was He released investigate. Plaintiff responsibility to I’m confined. yesterday, and still Could Hayes county, its alleging sued the that why procedure, find out what is the you delegating responsibility for set- The languishing I’m here[?]” still court court ting dates to the administrator action. On November took no deliberately was indifferent to the constitu- hereby slip: another “I seek submitted tional of arrestees. Our court my from custo- information about “at- agreed, holding that that p.m. at about 4 dy. My case was resolved to the tempts delegate responsibility without Thursday and I’m still confined bringing ap- detainees to court for a first explanation or information. What’s jail’s authority pearance ignores no procrastination about?” Still action long-term ... confinement is deliber- by the taken ADC. Russell testified was ately process indifferent to detainees’ due complaints filed similar each of that he rights.” Id. at 674. unlawfully that he incarcerat- days is akin He Hayes. Russell’s situation to contacted either the ed. The ADC never staff, to the in- filed several notices to determine probation court or the office forming the court ordered them that had validity complaint; they investigating his release. Instead him in simply held the ADC. claim, ignored it and direct- ADC staff majority would excuse ADC’s probation department. ed Russell to the act failure to because November was however, Hayes, delegation; forbids such a weekend, holiday, resulting followed responsibility is the to institute it ADC’s days that the court- in three consecutive detainees policies and customs ensure closed. I it hard to believe house was find necessary and longer are not than held populous county, in that Minnesota’s most policies. to I would re- then follow such question a serious arises when mand to the district court with directions inmate, unjustified detention of an there is proceed to trial to permit personnel court procedure no contact he was de- determine whether time though, Assuming, a weekend. over sig- tained was of sufficient constitutional majority concluding is correct damages, justify nificance an award of days, for three court was inaccessible and, so, damages. if amount of those no for the there is still excuse ADC’s Russell’s claim on investigate failure in-

Monday Tuesday. The ADC never status, choosing in-

quired about Russell’s accept deputy’s court errone-

stead

Case Details

Case Name: Charles Russell v. Hennepin County

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Aug 25, 2005

Citation: 420 F.3d 841

Docket Number: 04-3922

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.