United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2059

___________

Paul Christopher Stepnes, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

*

v. *

* Appeal from the United States

Hennepin County; Sheriff Patrick * District Court for the District

McGowan; * of Minnesota.

*

Defendants-Appellees, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Chief Deputy Michele Smolley; *

Inspector Thomas Merkel; Former *

Inspector Richard Estensen, *

*

Defendants. *

___________

Submitted: November 16, 2005

Filed: November 22, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

On two dates in December 2001, Paul Christopher Stepnes was arrested for

violating a protection order and detained at the Hennepin County Adult Detention

Center (ADC). Each time, after Stepnes posted bond, he was allegedly confined for

another four to six hours for administrative outprocessing. Stepnes brought this 42
*

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Court for the District of

Minnesota. 

-2-

U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against Hennepin County, its sheriff, and related officials

alleging the delays in releasing him violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due

process. Stepnes also alleged a false imprisonment claim under state law. Stepnes

later voluntarily dismissed his claims against three of the individual defendants. The

district court*

 granted summary judgment for the County and the sheriff (collectively

the County) holding Stepnes failed to show the County’s conduct rose to the level of

deliberate indifference. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on

the false imprisonment claim. Stepnes appeals. 

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo and affirm if there are no

genuine issues of material fact and the County is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law. Russell v. Hennepin County, 420 F.3d 841, 847 (8th Cir. 2005). To avoid

summary judgment dismissing his civil rights claim, Stepnes must show the County

was deliberately indifferent to his right to a timely release from his initially lawful

detention. See Goldberg v. Hennepin County, 417 F.3d 808, 811 (8th Cir. 2005). To

decide whether a defendant has been deliberately indifferent in a prolonged detention

case, courts focus both on the length of the detention and the circumstances

surrounding the delay. See Davis v. Hall, 375 F.3d 703, 718-19 (8th Cir. 2004). We

have held the district court properly granted summary judgment on a plaintiff’s due

process claim based on detention at the ADC for ten hours after bail was posted,

where Hennepin County presented evidence describing the routine administrative

outprocessing procedures responsible for the delay. See Goldberg, 417 F.3d at 810,

812; see also Luckes v. County of Hennepin, 415 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2005) (affirming

summary judgment for County on detainee’s claim that twenty-four hour booking and

processing time at the ADC following arrest violated substantive due process); Lund

v. Hennepin County, No. 05-1791, 2005 WL 2898641 (8th Cir. Nov. 4, 2005)

(discussing substantive due process cases based on detentions at the ADC). 
-3-

Stepnes argues there is a genuine issues of fact about whether the County acted

with deliberate indifference. As in Goldberg, the summary judgment record here

shows that the County’s failure to process Stepnes more promptly was at worst mere

negligence. 417 F.3d at 812. To account for the delay Stepnes experienced, the

County offered a detailed explanation of its inmate processing. The County also

explained that before releasing inmates like Stepnes, who had violated a protective

order, the ADC staff was required to notify victims of the pending release. Further,

on the dates of Stepnes’s incarceration, there were 12% and 18% more inmates than

the daily average. Bookings and releases were also substantially higher than average.

Stepnes acknowledges the County’s processing policies and procedures are probably

valid, but asserts the County has a “policy of delay.” Stepnes points to a sign posted

in the jail’s intake area stating, “Completing your paperwork and processing may take

more then eight hours. Be patient.” See Luckes, 415 F.3d at 937 (explaining same

sign). The County produced a detailed explanation of the release processes, however,

and Stepnes did not produce any evidence that the County’s processes are unnecessary

or arbitrary, or that the County’s procedures did not account for the delay he

experienced. Because Stepnes cannot establish the County’s conduct was worse than

mere negligence, Stepnes cannot make the necessary showing that the County was

deliberately indifferent to his constitutional rights. Goldberg, 417 F.3d at 812. Thus,

the County cannot be held liable for Stepnes’s detention under § 1983. Luckes, 415

F.3d at 940. 

We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the County.

______________________________