## 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* Defendants-Appellees, * [UNPUBLISHED]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 detainedat the Hennepin County Adult Detention Center (ADC). Each time, after Stepnes posted bond, he was alle gedly confined for another four to six hours for administrativ e outprocessing. Stepnes brought this 42* The Honorable David S. Doty, United Stat es 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 violat ed his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. Stepnes also alleged a false imprisonment claim under state law. Stepnes later voluntarily dismissed his claims agains t three of the individual defendants. The district court * granted summary judgment for the C ounty and the sheriff (collectively the County) holding Stepnes fa iled to show the County’s c onduct 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 judgm ent 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 (8 thCir. 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 (8 thCir. 2005). To decide whether a defendant ha s been deliberately indiffere nt 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 (8 thCir. 2004). We have held the district court properly granted summary judgment on a plaintiff’s due process claim based on detention at th e ADC for ten hours after bail was posted, where Hennepin County presented evidence describing the routine administrative outprocessing procedures respons ible for the delay. See Goldberg , 417 F.3d at 810, 812; see also Luckes v. County of Hennepin , 415 F.3d 936 (8 thCir. 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 (8 thCir. 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 e xplanation of its inmate processing. The County also explained that before releasing inmates lik e Stepnes, who had violated a protective order, the ADC staff was requi red to notify victims of th e pending release. Further, on the dates of Stepnes’s incarceration, th ere were 12% and 18% more inmates than the daily average. Bookings and releases we re also substantially higher than average. Stepnes acknowledges the County’s processi ng policies and procedures are probably valid, but asserts the County ha s a “policy of delay.” Stepnes points to a sign posted in the jail’s intake area stating, “Compl eting your paperwork a nd 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 th at the County’s processes are unnecessary or arbitrary, or that the County’s pr ocedures did not account for the delay he experienced. Because Stepnes cannot esta blish the County’s conduct was worse than mere negligence, Stepnes cannot make th e necessary showing that the County was deliberately indifferent to hi s constitutional rights. Goldberg , 417 F.3d at 812. Thus, the County cannot be held liable for St epnes’s detention under § 1983. Luckes , 415 F.3d at 940.

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

______________________________