Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03216/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03216-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3216

___________

Morris Killingham, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

County of Hennepin; Patrick D. *

McGowan, Sheriff; Michele Smolley, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Chief Deputy; Thomas Merkel, *

Inspector, Richard Esensten, Former *

Inspector, officially and individually, *

*

Defendants-Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 16, 2005

Filed: October 28, 2005

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, LAY and SMITH, Circuit Judges

___________

PER CURIAM.

On Friday, May 25, 2001, Morris Killingham was arrested by police officers

in Minneapolis, Minnesota, for domestic assault. At approximately 5:45 p.m. that

evening, Killingham arrived at the Hennepin County Adult Detention Center (the

“ADC”). The next morning, a state district court judge reviewed Killingham’s arrest,

found probable cause to support it, and set bail. Killingham did not post bail. On

June 1, 2001, Killingham was transported to the Hennepin County District Court in

Appellate Case: 04-3216 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/28/2005 Entry ID: 1968624
-2-

Ridgedale and, at 8:14 a.m., entered a plea of guilty. Later that afternoon, Killingham

received a sentence of ninety days, with credit for eight days already served, and the

remainder of his sentence was stayed. After sentencing, Killingham was taken back

to the ADC between 3:55 p.m and 4:20 p.m. Upon his arrival, Killingham entered a

holding cell for two and one-half to three hours. Finally, Killingham was returned

back to the ADC housing area where he awaited release. ADC records indicate

Killingham was released between 4:15 a.m. and 4:30 a.m on June 2. Killingham

contends, however, that his final, formal release did not occur until 10:10 a.m. on

June 2, 2001. 

Killingham subsequently filed claims against Hennepin County alleging, inter

alia, that his post-sentencing detention violated the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments, triggering liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted

Hennepin County’s motion for summary judgment, finding no evidence of a

constitutional violation resulting from an official municipal policy, or municipal

custom or usage, adopted by Hennepin County. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,

436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). 

A municipality may be held liable under § 1983 where a constitutional right is

violated pursuant to an official municipal policy. Kuha v. City of Minnetonka, 365

F.3d 590, 603 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing Monell). Official policy involves a deliberate

choice to follow a course of action made from various alternatives by an official who

maintains the final authority to establish governmental policy. Jane Doe A v. Special

Sch. Dist., 901 F.2d 642, 645 (8th Cir. 1990). Alternatively, to establish a claim

against a municipality under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on “custom or usage,” this court

requires a plaintiff to show: (1) the existence of a continuing, widespread, persistent

pattern of unconstitutional misconduct by the governmental entity’s employees; (2)

deliberate indifference to, or tacit authorization of, such conduct by the governmental

entity’s policymaking officials after notice to the officials of that misconduct; and (3)

Appellate Case: 04-3216 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/28/2005 Entry ID: 1968624
1

Previous decisions by this court suggest that the Fourth Amendment does not

provide the proper mode of analysis for claims alleging an unconstitutional detention

resulting from an initially lawful arrest. See Golberg, 417 F.3d at 811. Yet, even if

the Fourth Amendment does provide grounds to support Plaintiff’s claim, there still

must be a showing of deliberate indifference to survive a motion for summary

judgment. Id.

-3-

proof that the custom was the moving force behind the constitutional violation. Jane

Doe A, 901 F.2d at 646.

Before a municipality can be held liable under either theory, however, there

must first be an unconstitutional act. Avalos v. City of Glenwood, 382 F.3d 792, 802

(8th Cir. 2004). Regarding Killingham’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims,

we find no evidence of any constitutional infraction.

This court has noted that claims alleging the excessive detention of one who

has established the right to be released are typically analyzed under the Due Process

Clause.1

 See Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80 (1992). In Golberg v. Hennepin

County, 417 F.3d 808 (8th Cir. 2005), we recently held that the detention of an

individual for ten hours after bail was posted did not violate the plaintiff’s substantive

due process rights because there was no evidence of deliberate indifference by any

municipal employee to the plaintiff’s right to be released. Id. at 810-12.

Accordingly, although Killingham was detained for approximately eighteen hours

after the district court stayed the remainder of his sentence, we find no evidence in

the record that demonstrates deliberate indifference on the part of any ADC employee

or Hennepin County official to delay Killingham’s release. Therefore, given the

absence of any constitutional infraction, we affirm the district court’s order. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3216 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/28/2005 Entry ID: 1968624