|
|
| Appeals court okays inmate lawsuit |
| By Associated Press |
| Published: 09/20/2004 |
|
A prison inmate can move ahead with a lawsuit that claims state corrections officials subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment by keeping him behind bars after his mandatory release date, a state appeals court ruled last Thursday. James Allen sued several state Department of Corrections employees in April 2002, accusing them of violating his constitutional rights. He claims corrections officials deliberately refused to release him on parole until 377 days beyond his mandatory release date of Jan. 4, 2000. Corrections officials moved him to a minimum security prison rather than release him on parole because they were unable to find him housing, according to the lawsuit. Allen had served just over five years for sexual assault. State officials appealed after Dane County Circuit Court C. William Foust rejected their request to dismiss the case. The 4th District Court of Appeals agreed with Foust, saying the law clearly establishes that holding Allen beyond his mandatory release date violated his constitutional rights guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment for prisoners. Attorneys for the state argued the corrections officials were immune from the lawsuit, citing legal doctrines that generally shield public officials from lawsuits involving the performance of their duties. But the appeals court said government officials aren't immune from liability if the plaintiff can show they knew they were violating his rights and the rights violated are clearly established. There was enough evidence to show officials knew Allen had reached his release date and was entitled to be released on parole, the appeals court said. "No reasonable public official could have believed that such continued detention was constitutionally permissible," the appeals court said. No Wisconsin state court has previously addressed whether deliberately incarcerating an inmate beyond his mandatory release date amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. But the appeals court said federal courts have found that facts like those in Allen's case amount to a violation of the Eighth Amendment. The appeals court decision sends the case back to circuit court, where Allen's attorney, Jeff Scott Olson, said he would try to proceed to trial. Olson said Allen is now living in Milwaukee. Department of Corrections spokesman Bill Clausius said the agency is unlikely to appeal the decision but will review the case with state attorneys. Clausius said the agency issued a directive in July 2002 "to ensure that offenders who have reached their mandatory release are not kept in prison past that date." |
MARKETPLACE search vendors | advanced search
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
|
Comments:
No comments have been posted for this article.
Login to let us know what you think