Buchicchio v. Leblanc

1

NICHOLAS BUCHICCHIO v. JAMES M. LEBLANC, ET AL.

Civil Action No. 22-00147-BAJ-EWD

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

February 15, 2023

RULING AND ORDER

BRIAN A. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff formerly a prisoner detained by the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC), alleges that prison officials unlawfully delayed his release for twelve weeks after the expiration of his sentence, in violation of his right to due process and various other duties.

Now before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by Defendants DPSC Secretary, James LeBlanc; Chief of Corrections of the West Baton Rouge Transitional Work Facility, Steven Juge; and Sheriff of West Baton Rouge Parish, Mike Cazes. (Docs. 28 29). For reasons below, Plaintiff's due process and indemnification claims against Sheriff Cazes will be dismissed. Otherwise, Defendants' motions will be denied.

I. ALLEGED FACTS

The following allegations are drawn from Plaintiff's operative Amended Complaint (Doc. 21), or are otherwise subject to judicial notice,^[1] and are accepted as true for present purposes:

In 2017, Plaintiff lived in Rapides Parish, Louisiana, and was serving a term of probation for a prior conviction in Florida.

On March 13, 2017, Rapides Parish authorities arrested Plaintiff for theft. Plaintiff was initially booked at the Rapides Parish jail, and then returned to Florida where he pleaded guilty to violating the terms of his probation. The Florida court revoked Plaintiff's probation, and remanded Plaintiff to Florida's Department of Corrections to serve his sentence. (Doc. 21 at ¶¶ 33-35).

On May 6, 2019, Plaintiff completed his Florida sentence and returned to Rapides Parish for proceedings related to the underlying theft offense(s). Upon arrival, Plaintiff was again incarcerated at the Rapides Parish jail. (Id. at ¶¶ 36-37).

On January 16, 2020, Plaintiff appeared before Judge Mary Doggett of the Ninth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Rapides (“Ninth JDC”), and pleaded guilty to 10 counts of theft between $5,000-$25,000, in violation of La. R.S. § 1467(b)(2) (2014). (Doc. 28-2 at p. 1). At the same January 16 appearance, Judge Doggett sentenced Plaintiff to seven years imprisonment on each count, “sentences on each count to run concurrent with each other,” with credit for all time served- in Louisiana and Florida-from the date of Plaintiff's initial arrest. (Id.). As a result, Plaintiff was entitled to immediate release from custody. Still, Plaintiff was detained in Rapides Parish for two additional weeks, until his release on February 11, 2020. (Doc. 21 at ¶¶ 38-44).

After his release, Plaintiff returned to Florida, intending to rebuild his life. In June 2020, Plaintiff secured an interview for a job managing a condominium complex in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Plaintiff's prospective employer paid for Plaintiff's travel to St. Croix to meet in person and visit the grounds. Plaintiff landed the job and planned to accept. On his return to Florida, however, St. Croix airport authorities informed Plaintiff of an outstanding warrant for his arrest, and that law enforcement would be waiting to detain him in Miami. Baffled, and unaware of any outstanding warrant, Plaintiff nonetheless voluntarily boarded his flight. Sure enough, airport authorities arrested Plaintiff in Miami, based on an outstanding warrant issued by DPSC. (Id. at ¶¶ 45-54).

DPSC's warrant was a mistake, the result of DPSC's failure to properly calculate Plaintiff's release date under Judge Doggett's January 16, 2020 Commitment Order, despite having released Plaintiff four months earlier. Under the warrant, Plaintiff was returned to Louisiana, and imprisoned at the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center (EHCC) during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to pandemic protocols, Plaintiff was confined to a two-man “lockdown” cell 23 hours per day. (Id. at ¶¶ 55-57).

Upon arriving at EHCC, Plaintiff immediately informed DPSC of its mistake, and that he was being detained beyond his release date. Plaintiff filed an administrative grievance explaining his situation, and that he was entitled to immediate release as of the date of his sentencing hearing (January 16, 2021) under Judge Doggett's Commitment Order. On August 17, 2020, DPSC denied Plaintiff's grievance. (Id. at ¶¶ 58-60).

After DPSC's denial, Plaintiff submitted a pro se “Motion to Clarify/Modify Sentence” (the “Motion to Clarify” or “Motion”) to the Ninth JDC, seeking a hearing before Judge Doggett to correct DPSC's error. The Ninth JDC initially set Plaintiff's Motion for hearing on September 21, 2020, but DPSC caused Plaintiff to miss this hearing by failing to provide transport to the courthouse or, alternatively, allowing Plaintiff access to EHCC's remote (Zoom) conferencing facilities. Plaintiff's hearing was delayed twice more, each time due to DPSC's failure to provide transport or access to Zoom conferencing technology. (Id. at ¶¶ 61-64).

In early March 2021, DPSC transferred Plaintiff from EHCC to the West Baton Rouge Transitional Work Facility (“WBRWRC”), where Plaintiff's detention continued under the authority and supervision of Defendants Chief Juge and Sheriff Cazes. (Id. at ¶¶ 65-66).

On March 3, 2021, Plaintiff finally appeared before Judge Doggett (by Zoom) for a hearing on his Motion to Clarify. Chief Juge attended this hearing. Still pro se, Plaintiff explained the basis of his Motion-stating that his current detention (eight months and counting) was a mistake due to DPSC's miscalculation of his release date and the resulting erroneous warrant-and requested an order reaffirming that he received credit for time served on detainer in Florida. (Doc. 29-2). The transcript of Plaintiff's March 3 hearing states (in relevant part):

The Court: Okay, so what you're wanting at this point is [to] let the minutes reflect that you're getting credit for time served. I already have that in the minutes, but you wanted it to specifically say, including time served 10/16/2017 through May 7, 2019?

Mr. Buchicchio: Yes, ma'am because what had happened was, actually DOC released me in March of last year and then rearrested [sic] because there was an error in my release because the jail credits got all messed up.

The Court: Okay. I mean, I don't usually - that's a DOC function, but I don't mind just putting that one entry, that you would - because you were on detainer while in Florida, I don't mind amending the minutes and I'll do that for you today. So, if the District Attorney has no objection, I would amend the [sic] minutes to reflect that Mr. Buchicchio would be getting credit for time served on his sentence of - when was he sentenced? 01/16 right? Okay, so we're going to amend that, those minutes to reflect that he be given credit for time served and then the amendment will be to include, and specifically credit for time served on detainer from May 8th - no, from October 16, 2017 through May 7, 2019. Okay?

Mr. Buchicchio: Yes, ma'am. Thank you so much.

The Court: We'll try it. Alright. Good luck. Thank you.

(Doc. 29-2 at pp. 3-4).

Judge Doggett issued a minute entry Order the same day of the hearing (March 3), stating:

Accused present without counsel. State represented by K SANDERS. Defendant is present via zoom Conference. For Motion(s) MTN CREDIT FOR TXME SERVED-Defendant explained his motion to the Court. State has no objection to giving the defendant credit for time served while on detainer. Court ordered that the defendant receive credit for time served specifically while on detainer since the time of 10.16.2017 until 5.7.2019. Court granted defendants [sic] motion.

(Doc. 28-3 at p. 1).

Plaintiff contends that during the March 3 hearing-a portion of which is not transcribed due to a “[s]ide conversation off mic” (Doc. 29-2 at p. 3 (emphasis in original))-Judge Doggett “was confused and frustrated” by Plaintiff's ongoing detention, and made clear that he should be released. (Id. at ¶¶ 66-70).

Despite attending the March 3 hearing, Chief Juge failed to promptly arrange for Plaintiff's release, or even seek an expedited recalculation of Plaintiff's release date. Instead, after the hearing, Chief Juge told Plaintiff that he (Chief Juge) was “going home.” Thereafter, for twelve weeks DPSC failed to process Plaintiff's release. During this time, Plaintiff repeatedly confronted Chief Juge and inquired about the delay. In response, Chief Juge “at times express[ed] confusion as to why [Plaintiff] was still imprisoned,” but never gave an explanation, ultimately stating that the matter was “out of his hands.” (Id. at ¶¶ 71-76).

Finally, in the face of DPSC's inexplicable failure to act on Judge Doggett's March 3 Order, Plaintiff's family contacted an attorney to assist. On May 21, 2021, an attorney from The Promise of Justice Initiative emailed counsel for DPSC, stating that Plaintiff was “eligible for immediate release on March 3, 2021 but is currently in West Baton Rouge work release.” Counsel's email continued, “[s]ince Plaintiff is now past his proper release date, would you please expedite calculation of his time and release him as soon as possible?” Just four days later, on May 25, 2021, DPSC freed Plaintiff from custody. (Id. at ¶¶ 77-80).

Plaintiff alleges that his over-extended detention is the result of a well-documented and systemic practice of overdetention at DPSC-affecting hundreds of detainees each month. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Secretary LeBlanc has expressly and repeatedly acknowledged this problem, yet has failed to correct it, as detailed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Crittindon v. LeBlanc, 37 F.4th 177 (5th Cir. 2022), and even more recently, by the U.S. Department of Justice in its ...