Taylor Carlisle, Individually and as Representative Member of a Class, et al. v. Joseph P. Lopinto, III, Sheriff, et al.

Participants in a drug court probation program that conducts its business in closed, unrecorded meetings were repeatedly incarcerated by the Sheriff for significant periods, in the absence of a judicial proceeding or compulsory due process, and were denied statutorily mandated earned jail credits. The incarcerations are memorialized only by cryptic clerk “minute entries” citing if the detention was a “sanction” for noncompliance/contempt, or other reason, which the Court held to be “valid orders” dismissing the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims as barred by Heck or Preiser. The court also dismissed claims for over-detention based on denial of jail credits toward post-revocation sentences, as a “mis-reporting violation,” distinguishable from the pled claims alleging denial of earned jail credits, and denied amendment. The Questions Presented Are:

1. In the absence of judicial proceedings conducted on the record with due process, are the minute entries “orders” and are the sanctions within the class of “convictions or sentences” considered in Heck v. Humphrey and Preiser v. Rodriguez?

2. Are the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 over-detention claims for damages/injunctive relief barred by Heck, Preiser, or permitted under Spencer v Kemna? Is the court’s narrow construction of the credits claim a restriction on current Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 15 liberal construction?

3. Are “due process waivers” executed at plea, applicable to drug court “contempt” sanctions; do they provide qualified immunity to licensed private healthcare providers contracted to provide clinical supervision to the drug courts?