Opinion ID: 614341
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: There is a Clearly Established Right to Timely Release from Prison

Text: Detention of a prisoner for over thirty days beyond the expiration of his sentence in the absence of a facially valid court order or warrant constitutes a deprivation of due process. Douthit v. Jones, 619 F.2d 527, 532 (5th Cir.1980). Our precedent establishes that a jailer has a duty to ensure that inmates are timely released from prison. We have explained that [w]hile not a surety for the legal correctness of a prisoner's commitment, [a jailer] is most certainly under an obligation, often statutory, to carry out the functions of his office. Those functions include not only the duty to protect a prisoner, but also the duty to effect his timely release. Whirl v. Kern, 407 F.2d 781, 792 (5th Cir.1969) (internal citations and footnote omitted). We reaffirmed the jailer's obligation in this regard in Bryan v. Jones, 530 F.2d 1210 (5th Cir.1976) (en banc), a case in which a prisoner filed suit for damages under § 1983 for false imprisonment after he was held in prison for an additional month because the records were not updated to reflect his release notice. Id. at 1212-13. There, the en banc court recognized that, despite the defense of qualified immunity, [i]f [the jailer] negligently establishes a record keeping system in which errors of this kind are likely, he will be held liable. Id. at 1215. Thus, the issue is whether Epps's actions, in light of his duty to ensure Porter's timely release from prison, were objectively unreasonable.