Case Name: Thomas Patrick HERYLA, Appellant, v. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA; Patrick D. McGowan, Sheriff; Michele Smolley, Chief Deputy; Thomas Merkel, Inspector; Richard Estensen, Former Inspector, officially and individually, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-19
Citations: 162 F. App'x 676
Docket Number: No. 05-1977
Parties: Thomas Patrick HERYLA, Appellant, v. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA; Patrick D. McGowan, Sheriff; Michele Smolley, Chief Deputy; Thomas Merkel, Inspector; Richard Estensen, Former Inspector, officially and individually, Appellees.
Judges: Before BYE, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 162
Pages: 676–677

Head Matter:
Thomas Patrick HERYLA, Appellant, v. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA; Patrick D. McGowan, Sheriff; Michele Smolley, Chief Deputy; Thomas Merkel, Inspector; Richard Estensen, Former Inspector, officially and individually, Appellees.
No. 05-1977.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 15, 2005.
Decided: Jan. 19, 2006.
Kay Nord Hunt, Seth M. Colton, Theresa Ann Bofferding, Lommen & Nelson, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellant.
Toni Ann Bunker Beitz, Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellees.
Before BYE, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Thomas Patrick Heryla sued Hennepin County and certain county officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging his federal constitutional rights were violated due to a twenty-one-and-a-half-hour period of detention in the Hennepin County Adult Detention Center (ADC) while Heryla was being booked. The district court granted Hennepin County's motion for summary judgment after concluding the length of the delay was reasonable and the defendants' conduct was neither deliberately indifferent to Heryla's constitutional rights nor conscience shocking. Heryla filed a timely appeal.
We are guided and controlled in our disposition of this case by several recent decisions involving similar challenges to the processing procedures at the ADC, some of which involved a longer period of detention than the period of detention at issue in this case. See Lund v. Hennepin County, 427 F.3d 1123 (8th Cir.2005); Russell v. Hennepin County, 420 F.3d 841 (8th Cir.2005); Golberg v. Hennepin County, 417 F.3d 808 (8th Cir.2005); Luckes v. County of Hennepin, 415 F.3d 936 (8th Cir.2005); Stepnes v. Hennepin County, 153 Fed.Appx. 410 (8th Cir.2005) (unpublished); and Killingham v. County of Hennepin, 152 Fed.Appx. 554 (8th Cir.2005) (unpublished). All of the issues raised by Heryla were addressed and decided in Hennepin County's favor in one or more of the above cases. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court in favor of Hennepin County in this case.
. The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.