Opinion ID: 798437
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pre-arraignment Detention

Text: Wilson argues that his pre-arraignment detention of at least 84 hours violated state and federal law, which generally presume that delays longer than 48 hours in presenting arrestees to a court for arraignment are “unreasonable.” County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 57 (1991). However, Wilson’s Fourth Amended Complaint referenced “excessive detention” only in passing, and did not include an excessivedetention allegation among his listed claims. The passing references to excessive detention did not specify whether the reference was to his two-and-a-half years in pretrial detention or to the delay in his arraignment. The district court liberally construed the Fourth Amended Complaint to include a 3 claim for excess detention independent of the claim for malicious prosecution, and applied that claim to the two and one-half year pre-trial detention generally, deeming any claim for relief for pre-arraignment detention as waived. The district court did not err in this generous reading of an ambiguous complaint. The complaint focuses on the Wilson’s alleged false arrest and prolonged pre-trial detention, but makes no reference to an excessive delay in arraignment. Indeed, the complaint contains no factual allegation regarding the length of his detention before being arraigned, or the times at which he was arrested or presented in court. Wilson’s first effort to assert this claim apparently occurred in his papers opposing the summary judgment motion. Because we agree with the district court that it is “inappropriate to raise new claims for the first time in submissions in opposition to summary judgment,” we conclude that Wilson waived any claim for excessive pre-arraignment detention.