Court Opinion

ID: 9477227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:17:32.791146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:46.148355
License: Public Domain

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge,
concurring and in which NELSON, Circuit Judge, also joins:
I concur in the majority opinion. I would, however, add the following:
Our opinion holds only that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not afford relief to a person who is incarcerated under a contempt order for longer than the law permits — at least not in a case where the applicable regulations and court order require the custodial officers to hold the individual until the court directs his release and the officers comply with that order.
Two questions must occur to anyone confronted with the patent injustice that occurred when McQuade was unlawfully incarcerated for well over a year. First, what steps can be taken to ensure that similar episodes do not occur in the future. That is initially a matter both for the district court and for those responsible both for drafting and promulgating the sections of the regulations that presently tie the hands of the Marshal and the Bureau of Prisons. While there appears to be little justification for the errors that occurred in this case, there is certainly no reason why steps cannot be taken immediately to avoid similar incidents in the future. The second question involves the matter of compensation. We are not asked to consider here whether remedies other than the Federal *644Tort Claims Act are available. If none exist in cases such as the one before us, Congress might wish to consider whether one should be provided.
The contempt power carries with it the inherent danger of arbitrariness and abuse. When exercising that power, a sentencing judge has a particular responsibility to ensure that all persons are treated fairly and within the limits of the law.1 That includes ensuring that the order of contempt sets forth the maximum period of time for which the person confined may be held.2
Judge NELSON joins in this concurring opinion

. District Judge Rafeedie whose decision we affirm was not the judge who ordered McQuade incarcerated. That order was issued by a different judge of the same district.

. It is worthy of note that McQuade was ordered incarcerated when he refused to answer questions "until an attorney was appointed to represent him”. Perhaps the appointment of an attorney for a person facing 18 months confinement under the law (and 33 months in actuality) would have avoided this regrettable occurrence.