Montanez v. Thompson, 603 F.3d 243 (3d Cir. 2010)

Third Circuit holds that correctional officer is entitled to qualified immunity for incarcerating the plaintiff prisoner beyond the expiration of his maximum term of imprisonment.

The plaintiff, a former inmate, sued Graterford Prison and other defendants, including corrections official Pat Thompson, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly violating the plaintiff's rights under the Eighth Amendment. The district court denied Thompson's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, and Thompson's counsel appealed. The plaintiff Miguel Montanez alleged that he was incarcerated beyond the expiration of his maximum term of imprisonment as a result of the defendants' deliberate indifference in responding to his inquiries and challenges. The Pennsylvania Parole Board had recommitted Montanez but later rescinded a portion of the sentence. Montanez was also imprisoned in a separate case. Eventually, he was given commitment credit and was released. The Third Circuit held that it had jurisdiction over the official's interlocutory appeal to determine whether the set of facts identified by the district court was sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established right. The court held that in order to do so, it was not necessary to determine whether the inmate was actually held beyond his maximum release date. The court found that it was objectively reasonable for Thompson to have believed that her conduct in response to the inmate's claims was lawful and in keeping with the inmate's constitutional rights, therefore, the official was entitled to qualified immunity. The official forwarded the commitment credit issue to the appropriate parties for review. Although the process took a significant amount of time to resolve, the claim did not involve simple issues for determination. The Third Circuit Court held that Thompson was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Montanez's Eighth Amendment claims. The district court's denial of summary judgment was reversed, and the matter was remanded.

Case Law Alert - 3rd Qtr 2010