Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Huang v. Johnson
251 F.3d 65 (2nd Cir. 2001) ; Clearinghouse Number: 53800
Description
Second Circuit Holds That Juvenile May Bring False Imprisonment Claim Under Section 1983 Because He Lacks Habeas Corpus Remedy
Abstract
The Second Circuit held that the U.S. Supreme Court’s
decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), did not
bar plaintiff-appellant’s Section 1983 action claiming false
imprisonment. Plaintiff-appellant’s minor son was adjudicated
delinquent and sentenced to a day program. When he failed to report
following an arrest and detention for attempted murder,
defendant-appellees transferred him to a more restrictive program
and added the time he spent in custody on the second charge to his
original juvenile sentence. After completing the extended sentence,
he pled guilty to the second charge. Plaintiff-appellant brought
this Section 1983 action, alleging her son had a right to a
pretransfer hearing and that his time in custody on the second
charge should have been credited to his juvenile sentence. The
district court denied both claims. Regarding false imprisonment, it
relied on a New York statute prohibiting credit for time served on
an unrelated arrest resulting in conviction. The district court
also held that the Eleventh Amendment barred plaintiff’s
damages claim. The Second Circuit found that Heck, which requires a
Section 1983 plaintiff to show that either the conviction was
overturned or a writ of habeas corpus was issued, did not bar a
false imprisonment claim where plaintiff was released and habeas
relief was not available. Declining to interpret the state statute
at issue, the Second Circuit certified to the New York Court of
Appeals the question of whether the release date had been properly
calculated. It held that transfer to the more restrictive placement
did not implicate due process concerns and found no bar to damages
claims against defendant-appellees sued in their individual
capacities; such a ruling “would transfer Eleventh Amendment
immunity to such individuals.”
